《 Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible – Job (Vol. 1) 》 (Albert Barnes)

CommentatorAlbert Barnes (1798-1870) was an American theologian, born at Rome, New York, on December 1, 1798. He graduated from Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823. Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor successively of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825-1830), and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830-1867).He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837; he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836, the charge being particularly against the views expressed by him in Notes on Romans (1835) of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Europe and America than any others of their class.Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament, it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870. The Notes on Job, the Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel found scarcely less acceptance. Displaying no original critical power, their chief merit lies in the fact that they bring in a popular (but not always accurate) form the results of the criticism of others within the reach of general readers. Barnes was the author of several other works of a practical and devotional kind, including Scriptural Views of Slavery (1846) and The Way of Salvation (1863). A collection of his Theological Works was published in Philadelphia in 1875.

In his famous 1852 oratory, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?", Frederick Douglass quoted Barnes as saying: "There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it."Barnes died in Philadelphia on December 24, 1870.

00 Introduction

Introduction to JobIn reference to no part of the Scriptures have so many questions arisen as to the Book of Job. The time of its composition; the author; the country where the scene was laid; the question whether Job was a real person; the nature and design of the poem; have been points on which a great variety of opinion has been entertained among expositors, and on which different views still prevail. It is important, in order to have a correct understanding of the book, that all the light should be thrown on these subjects which can be; and though amidst the variety of opinion which prevails among men of the highest distinction in learning absolute certainty cannot be hoped for, yet such advances have been made in the investigation that on some of these points we may arrive to a high degree of probability.Section 1. The Question whether Job Was a Real PersonThe first question which presents itself in the examination of the book is, whether Job had a real existence. This has been doubted on such grounds as the following:(1) The book has been supposed by some to have every mark of an allegory. Allegories and parables, it is said, are not uncommon in the Scriptures where a case is supposed, and then the narrative proceeds as if it were real. Such an instance, it has been maintained, occurs here, in which the author of the poem designed to illustrate important truths, but instead of stating them in an abstract form, chose to present them in the more graphic and interesting form of a supposed case - in which we are led to sympathize with a sufferer; to see the ground of the difficulty in the question under discussion in a more affecting manner than could be presented in an abstract form; and where the argument has all to interest the mind which one has when occurring in real life.(2) it has been maintained that some of the transactions in the book must have been of this character, or are such as could not have actually occurred. Particularly it has been said that the account of the interview of Satan with

yahweh Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-7 must be regarded merely as a supposed case, it being in the highest degree improbable that such an interview would occur, and such a conversation be held.(3) the same conclusion has been drawn from the artificial character of the statements about the possessions of Job, both before and after his trials - statements which appear as if the case were merely supposed, and which would not be likely to occur in reality. Thus, we have only round numbers mentioned in enumerating his possessions - as 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 she-asses. So, also, there is something artificial in the manner in which the sacred numbers seven and three are used. He had 7,000 sheep, 7 sons - both before and after his trials; his three friends came and sat down 7 days and 7 nights without saying a word to condole with him Job 2:13; and both before and after his trials he had three daughters. The same artificial and parabolical appearance, it is said, is seen in the fact that after his recovery his possessions were exactly doubled, and he had again in his old age exactly the same number of 7 sons and 3 daughters which he had before his afflictions.(4) that the whole narration is allegorical or parabolical has been further argued from the conduct of the friends of Job. Their sitting down 7 days and 7 nights without saying anything, when they had come expressly to condole with him, it is said, is a wholly improbable circumstance, and looks as if the whole were a supposed case.(5) the same thing has been inferred from the manner in which the book is written. It is of the highest order of poetry. The speeches are most elaborate; are filled with accurate and carefully prepared argument; are arranged with great care; are expressed in the most sententious manner; embody the results of long and careful observation, and are wholly unlike what would be uttered in unpremeditated and extemporary debate. No men, it is said, talk in this manner; nor can it be supposed that beautiful poetry and sublime argument, such as abound in this book, ever fell in animated debate from the lips of men. See Eichorn, Einleitung in das Alte Tes. V. Band. 129-131. From considerations such as these the historical character of the book has been doubted, and the whole has been regarded as a supposed case designed to illustrate the great question which the author of the poem proposed to examine.It is important, therefore, to inquire what reasons there are for believing that such a person as Job lived, and how far the transactions referred to in the book are to be regarded as historically true.

(1) the fact of his existence is expressly declared, and the narrative has all the appearance of being a simple record of an actual occurrence. The first two chapters of the book, and a part of the last chapter, are simple historical records. The remainder of the book is indeed poetic, but these portions bare none of the characteristics of poetry. There are not to be found in the Bible more simple and plain historical statements than these; and there are none which, in themselves considered, might not be as properly set aside as allegorical. This fact should be regarded as decisive, unless there is some reason which does not appear on the face of the narrative for regarding it as allegorical.(2) the account of the existence of such a man is regarded as historically true by the inspired writers of the Scriptures. Thus, in Ezekiel 14:14, God says, “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it (the land), they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.” Compare Ezekiel 14:16, Ezekiel 14:20. Here Job is referred to as a real character as distinctly as Noah and Daniel, and all the circumstances are just such as they would be on the supposition that he had a real existence. They are alike spoken of as real “men;” as having souls - “they should deliver but their own souls by their own righteousness;” as having sons and daughters - “they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, they only shall be delivered” Ezekiel 14:16; and are in all respects mentioned alike as real characters. Of the historic fact that there were such men as Noah and Daniel there can be no doubt, and it is evident that Ezekiel as certainly regarded Job as a real character as he did either of the others.A parallel passage, which will illustrate this, occurs in Jeremiah 15:1: “Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people.” Here Moses and Samuel are spoken of as real characters, and there is no doubt of their having existed. Yet they are mentioned in the same manner as Job is in the passage in Ezekiel. In either case it is incredible that a reference should have been made to a fictitious character. The appeal is one that could have been made only to a real character, and there can be no reasonable doubt that Ezekiel regarded Job as having really existed; or rather, since it is God who speaks and not Ezekiel, that he speaks of Job as having actually existed. The same thing is evident from a reference to Job by the apostle James: “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy” James 5:11; that is, the happy issue to which the Lord brought all his trials, showing that he was pitiful to those in affliction, and of great mercy.

There can be no doubt that there is reference here to the sufferings of a real man, as there is to the real compassion which the Lord shows to one in great trials. It is incredible that this sacred writer should have appealed in this instance to the case of one whom he regarded as a fictitious character; and if the views of Ezekiel and James are to be relied on, there can be no doubt that Job had a real existence. Ezekiel mentions him just as he does Noah and Daniel, and James mentions him just as he does Elijah James 5:17; and so far as this historical record goes there is the same evidence of the actual existence of the one as of the other.(3) the specifications of places and names in the book are not such as would occur in an allegory. Had it been merely a “supposed case,” to illustrate some great truth, these specifications would have been unnecessary, and would not have occurred. In the acknowledged parables of the Scripture, there are seldom any very minute specifications of names and places. Thus, in the parable of the prodigal son, neither the name of the father, nor of the sons, nor of the place where the scene was laid, is mentioned. So of the nobleman who went to receive a kingdom; the unjust steward; the ten virgins, and of numerous others. But here we have distinct specifications of a great number of things which are in no way necessary to illustrate the main truth in the poem. Thus, we have not only the name of the sufferer, but the place of his residence mentioned, as if it were well known. We have the names of his friends, and the places of their residence mentioned - “Eliphaz the Temanite,” and “Bildad the Shuhite,” and “Zophar the Naamathite.” and Elihu “the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.” Why are the places of residence of these persons mentioned unless it be meant to intimate that they were real persons, and not allegorical characters?In like manner we have express mention of the Sabeans and the Chaldeans - specifications wholly unnecessary if not improbable if the work is an allegory. The single word “robbers” would have answered all the purpose, and would have been such as an inspired writer would have used unless the transaction were real, for an inspired writer would not have charged this offence on any class of men, thus holding them up to lasting reproach, unless an event of this kind had actually occurred. When the Savior, in the parable of the good Samaritan, mentions a robbery that occurred between Jerusalem and Jericho, the word “thieves,” or more properly “robbers”, is the only word used. No names are mentioned, nor is any class of men referred to, who would by such a mention of the name be held up to infamy. Thus, also we have the particular statement

respecting the feasting of the sons and daughters of Job; his sending for and admonishing them; his offering up special sacrifices on their behalf; the account of the destruction of the oxen, the sheep, the camels, and the house where the sons and daughters of Job were - all statements of circumstances which would not be likely to occur in an allegory.They are such particular statements as we expect to find respecting the real transactions, and they bear on the face of them the simple impression of truth. This is not the kind of information which we look for in a parable. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, almost the only one spoken by the Saviour where a name is mentioned, we have not that of the rich man; and though the name Lazarus is mentioned, yet that is all. We have no account of his family, of his place of residence, of his genealogy, of the time when he lived; and the name itself is so common that it would be impossible even to suspect whom the Savior had in his eye, if he had any real individual at all. Far different is this in the account of Job. It is true that in a romance, or in an extended allegory like the Pilgrim‘s Progress, we expect a detailed statement of names and places; but there is no evidence that there is any such extended fictitious narrative in the Bible, and unless the Book of Job be one there is no such extended allegory.(4) the objections urged against this view are not such as to destroy the positive proof of the reality of the existence of Job. The objections which have been urged against the historical truth of the narrative, and which have already been in part alluded to, are principally the following:The first is, the account of the interview between God and Satan in Job 2:1-13. It is alleged that this is so improbable a transaction as to throw an air of fiction over all the historical statements of the book. In reply to this, it may be observed, first, that even if this were not to be regarded as a literal transaction, it does not prove that no such man as Job lived, and that the transactions in regard to him were not real. He might have had an existence, and been stripped of his possessions, and subjected to these long and painful trials of his fidelity, even if this were a poetic ornament, or merely a figurative representation.But, secondly, it is impossible to prove that no such transaction occurred. The existence of such a being as Satan is everywhere recognized in the Scriptures; the account which is here given of his character accords entirely with the uniform representation of him; he exerts no power over Job which is not expressly conceded to him; and it is impossible to prove that he does not even now perform the same things in the trial of good men, which it is said that he did in the case of

Job. And even if it be admitted that there is somewhat of poetic statement in the form in which he is introduced, still this does not render the main account improbable and absurd. The Bible, from the necessity of the case, abounds with representations of this sort; and when it is said that God “speaks” to men, that he conversed with Adam, that he spake to the serpent Job 1:6-12.A second objection to the historical truth of the transactions recorded in the book is, the poetic character of the work, and the strong improbability that addresses of this kind should ever have been made in the manner here represented. See Eichhorn, Einleit. v. 123,124. They are of the highest order of poetry; they partake not at all of the nature of extemporaneous effusions; they indicate profound and close thinking, and are such as must have required much time to have prepared them. Especially it is said that it is in the highest degree improbable that Job, in the anguish of his body and mind, should have been capable of giving utterance to poetry and argument of this highly finished character. In regard to this objection, it may be observed,(1) that even if this were so, and it were to be supposed that the arguments of the various speakers have a poetic character, and were in reality never uttered in the form in which we now have them, still this would not invalidate the evidence which exists of the historic truth of the facts stated about the existence and trials of Job. It might be true that he lived and suffered in this manner, and that a discussion of this character actually occurred, and that substantially these arguments were advanced, though they were afterward wrought by Job himself or by some other hand into the poetic form in which we now have them. Job himself lived after his trials 140 years, and, in itself considered, there is no improbability in the supposition, that when restored to the vigorous use of his powers, and in the leisure which he enjoyed, he should have thought it worthy to present the argument which he once held on this great subject in a more perfect form, and to give to it a more poetic cast. In this case, the main historic truth would be retained, and the real argument would in fact be stated - though in a form more worthy of preservation than could be expected to fall extemporaneously from the lips of the speakers. But(2) all the difficulty may be removed by a supposition which is entirely in accordance with the character of the book and the nature of the case. It is, that the several speeches succeeded each other at such intervals as gave full time for reflection, and for carefully framing the argument. There is no evidence that the whole argument was gone through with “at one sitting;” there are no proofs

that one speech followed immediately on another, or that a sufficient interval of time may not have elapsed to give opportunity for preparation to meet the views which had been suggested by the previous speaker. Everything in the book bears the marks of the most careful deliberation, and is as free as possible from the hurry and bustle of an extemporaneous debate. The sufferings of Job were evidently of a protracted nature. His friends sat down “seven days and seven nights” in silence before they said anything to him.The whole subject of the debate seems to be arranged with most systematic care and regularity. The speakers succeed each other in regular order in a series of arguments - in each of these series following the same method, and no one of them out of his place. No one is ever interrupted while speaking; and no matter how keen and sarcastic his invectives, how torturing his reproaches, how bold or blasphemous what he said was thought to be, he is patiently heard until he has said all that he designed to say; and then all that he said is carefully weighed and considered in the reply. All this looks as if there might have been ample time to arrange the reply before it was uttered, and this supposition, of course, would relieve all the force of this objection. If this be so, then there is no more ground of objection against the supposition that these things were spoken, as it is said they were, than there is about the genuineness of the poems of the Grecian Rhapsodists, composed with a view to public recitation, or to the Iliad of Homer or the History of Herodotus, both of which, after they were composed, were recited publicly by their authors at Athens. No one can prove certainly that the several persons named in the book - Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zolphar, and Elihu - were incompetent to compose the speeches which are severally assigned to them, or that all the time necessary for such a composition was not taken by them.Unless this can be done, the objection of its improbability, so confidently urged by Eichhorn (Einleit. v. 123ff.), and defended by Noyes (Intro. pp. xxi., xxi.), where he says that “the supposition that so beautiful and harmonious a whole, every part of which bears the stamp of the highest genius, was the casual production of a man brought to the gates of the grave by a loathsome disease, of three or four friends who had come to comfort him in his affliction, all of them expressing their thoughts in poetical and measured language; that the Deity was actually heard to speak half an hour in the midst of a violent storm; and that the consultations in the heavenly world were actual occurrences, is too extravagant to need refutation,” is an objection really of little force.

A third objection has been derived from the round and doubled numbers which occur in the book, and the artificial character which the whole narrative seems to assume on that account. It is alleged that this is wholly an unusual and improbable occurrence; and that the whole statement appears as if it were a fictitious narrative. Thus Job‘s possessions of oxen and camels and sheep are expressed in round numbers; one part of these is exactly the double of another; and what is more remarkable still, all these are exactly doubled on his restoration to health. He had the same number of sons and the same number of daughters after his trial which he had before, and the number of each was what was esteemed among the Hebrews as a sacred number.In regard to this objection, we may observe:(1) That as to the round numbers, this is no more than what constantly occurs in historical statements. Nothing is more common in the enumeration of armies, of the people of a country, or of herds and flocks, than such statements.(2) in regard to the fact that the possessions of Job are said to have been exactly “doubled” after his recovery from his calamities, it is not necessary to suppose that this was in all respects literally true. Nothing forbids us to suppose that, from the gifts of friends and other causes, the possessions of Job came so near to being just twice what they were before his trials, as to justify this general statement. In the statement itself, there is nothing improbable. Job lived 140 after his trials. If he had then the same measure of prosperity which he had before, and with the assistance of his friends to enable him to begin life again, there is no improbability in the supposition that these possessions would be doubled.These are substantially all the objections which have been urged against the historical character of the book, and if they are not well founded, then it follows that it should be regarded as historically true that such a man actually lived, and that he passed through the trials which are here described. A more extended statement of these objections, and a refutation of them, may be found in the following works: - Warburton‘s Divine Legation of Moses, Vol. V. p. 298ff. ed. 8vo, London, 1811; Prof. Lee on Job, Intro. Section 11; and Magee on atonement and Sacrifice, p. 212, following, ed. New York, 1813. It should be said, however, that not a few writers admit that such a man as Job lived, and that the book has an historical basis, while they regard the work itself as in the main poetic. In the view of such critics, the poet, in order to illustrate the great truth which he proposed to consider, made use of a tradition respecting the sufferings of a well-known person of distinction, and gave to the whole argument the high poetic cast which

it has now. This supposition is in accordance with the methods frequently adopted by epic and tragic poets, and which is commonly followed by writers of romance. This is the opinion of Eichhorn, Einleitung V. Section 638.Section 2. The Question on Where Job LivedIn Job 1:1, it is said that Job dwelt “in the land of Uz.” The only question, then, to be settled in ascertaining where he lived, is, if possible, to determine where this place was. From the manner in which the record is made (“the land of Uz”) it would seem probable that this was a region of country of some considerable extent, and also that it derived its name from some man of that name who had settled there. The word Uz (עוץ ‛uts ), according to Gesenius, means a light, sandy soil; and if the name was given to the country with reference to this quality of the soil, it would be natural to fix on some region remarkable for its barrenness - a waste place or a desert. Gesenius supposes that Uz was in the northern part of Arabia Deserta - a place lying between Palestine and the Euphrates, called by Ptolemy Αισιται Aisitai This opinion is defended by Rosenmuller (Prolegomena); and is adopted by Spanheim, Bochart, Lee, Umbreit, Noyes, and the authors of the Universal History. Dr. Good supposes that the Uz here referred to was in Arabia Petraea, on the southwestern coast of the Dead Sea, and that Job and all his friends referred to in the poem were Idumeans. Introductory Dissertation, Section 1.Eichhorn also supposes that the scene is laid in Idumea, and that the author of the poem shows that he had a particular acquaintance with the history, customs, and productions of Egypt. Einleit. Section 638. Bochart (in Phaleg et Canaan), Michaelis (Spicileg. Geog. Hebraeo.), and Ilgen (Jobi, Antiquis. carminis Hebrew natura et indoles, p. 91), suppose that the place of his residence was the valley of Guta near Damascus, regarded as the most beautiful of the four Paradises of the Arabians. For a description of this valley, see Eichhorn, Einleit. V. s. 134. The word uts (Uz)‛ עוץ occurs only in the following places in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 10:23; Genesis 22:21; Genesis 36:28, and 1 Chronicles 1:17 , 1 Chronicles 1:42 ; in each of which places it is the name of a man; and in Jeremiah 25:20; Lamentations 4:21, and in Job 1:1, where it is applied to a country. The only circumstances which furnish any probability in regard to the place where Job lived, are the following:(1) Those which enable us to determine with some probability where the family of Uz was settled, who not improbably gave his name to the country - as Sheba, and Seba, and Tema, and Cush, and Misraim, and others, did to the countries

where they settled. In Genesis 10:23; Uz עוץ ‛uts is mentioned as a grandson of Shem. In Genesis 22:21; an Uz (English Bible, “Huz”) is mentioned as the son of Nahor, brother of Abraham, undoubtedly a different person from the one mentioned in Genesis 10:23. In Genesis 36:28, an individual of this name is mentioned among the descendants of Esau. In 1 Chronicles 1:17 , the name occurs among the “sons of Shem;” and in 1 Chronicles 1:42 , the same name occurs among the descendants of Esau. So far, therefore, as the name is concerned, it may have been derived from one of the family of Shem, or from one who was a contemporary with Abraham, or from a somewhat remote descendant Esau. It will be seen in the course of this introduction, that there is strong improbability that the name was given to the country because it was settled by either of the two latter, as such a supposition would bring down the time when Job lived to a later period than the circumstances recorded in his history will allow, and it is therefore probable that the name was conferred in honor of the grandson of Shem. This fact, of itself, will do something to determine the place.Shem lived in Asia, and we shall find that the settlements of his descendants originally occupied the country somewhere in the vicinity of the Euphrates; Genesis 10:21-30. In Genesis 10:23; Uz is mentioned as one of the sons of Aram, who gave name to the country known as Aramea, or Syria, and from whom the Arameans descended. Their original residence, it is supposed, was near the river Kir, or Cyrus, from where they were brought, at some period now unknown, by a deliverance resembling that of the children of Israel from Egypt, and placed in the regions of Syria; see Amos 9:7. The inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia are always called by Moses “Arameus”: as they had their seat in and near Mesopotamia, it is probable that Uz was located also not far from that region. We should, therefore, naturally be led to look for the country of Uz somewhere in that vicinity. In Genesis 10:30; it is further said of the sons of Shem, that “their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the East;” a statement which corresponds with what is said of Job himself, that he was “the greatest of all the men of the East” Job 1:8; manifestly implying that he was an inhabitant of the country so called.Various opinions have been entertained of the places where Mesha and Sephar were. The opinion of Michaelis is the most probable (Spicileg. pt. 11, p. 214), “that Mesha is the region around Passora, which the later Syrians called Maishon, and the Greeks Mesene. Under these names they included the country on the Euphrates and the Tigris, between Seleucia and the Persian Gulf.

Abulfeda mentions in this region two cities not far from Passora, called Maisan, and Mushan. Here, then, was probably the northeastern border of the district inhabited by the Joktanites. The name of the opposite limit, Sephar, signifies in the Chaldee shore or coast, and is probably the western part of Yemen, along the Arabian Gulf, now called by the Arabs Tchiainah. The range of high and mountainous country between these two borders, Moses calls “the Mount of the East,” or eastern mountains. It is also called by the Arabs, Djebal, i. e., “mountains,” to the present day. See Rosenmuller‘s Alterthumskunde, iii. 163,164.The supposition that some portion of this region is denoted by the country where Uz settled, and is the place where Job resided is strengthened by the fact, that many of the persons and tribes mentioned in the book resided in this vicinity. Thus, it is probable that Eliphaz the Temanite had his residence there; see the notes at Job 2:11. The Sabeans probably dwelt not very remote from that region (see the notes at Job 1:15); the Chaldeans we know had their residence there (notes, Job 1:17), and this supposition will agree well with what is said of the tornado that came from the “wilderness,” or desert; see the notes at Job 1:19. The residence of Job was so near to the Chaldeans and the Sabeans that he could be reached in their usual predatory excursions; a fact that better accords with the supposition that his residence was in some part of Arabia Deserta, than that it was in Idumea.(2) this country is referred to in two places by Jeremiah, which may serve to aid us in determining its location; Lamentations 4:21:“Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom,That dwellest in the land of Uz;The cup shall pass through unto thee:Thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked.”At first view, perhaps, this passage would indicate that the land of Uz was a part of Edom, yet it more properly indicates that the land of Uz was not a part of that land, but that the Edomites or Idumeans had gained possession of a country which did not originally belong to them. Thus, the prophet speaks of the “daughter of Edom,” not as dwelling in her own country properly, but as dwelling “in the land of Uz” - in a foreign country, of which she had somehow obtained possession. The country of Edom, properly, was Mount Seir and the vicinity, south of the Dead Sea; but it is known that the Edomites subsequently extended their boundaries, and that at one period Bozrah, on the east of the Dead Sea, in

the country of Moab, was their capital; see the Analysis of Isaiah 34:6. It is highly probable that Jeremiah refers to the period when the Idumeans, having secured these conquests, and made this foreign city their capital, is represented as dwelling there. If so, according to this passage in Lamentations, we should naturally look for the land of Uz somewhere in the countries to which the conquests of the Edomites extended - and these conquests were chiefly to the east of their own land. A similar conclusion will be derived from the other place where the name occurs in Jeremiah. It is in Jeremiah 25:20 ff. “And all the mingled people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Askelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod, and Edom, and Moab, and the children of Ammon,” etc. Two things are apparent here. One is, that the country of Uz was distinct from the land of Edom, since they are mentioned as separate nations; the other is, that it was a country of some considerable extent, since it is mentioned as being under several “kings.” There is, indeed, in this reference to it no allusion to its situation; but it is mentioned as being well known in the time of Jeremiah.(3) the same thing is evident from the manner in which the residence of Job is spoken of in Job 1:8. He is there said to have been the “greatest of all the men of the east.” This implies that his residence was in the land which was known familiarly as the country of the East. It is true, indeed, that we have not yet determined where the poem was composed, and of course do not know precisely what the author would understand by this phrase, but the expression has a common signification in the Scriptures, as denoting the country east of Palestine. The land of Idumea, however, was directly south; and we are, therefore, naturally led to look to some other place as the land of Uz; compare the notes at Job 1:3. The expression “the East,” as used in the Bible, would in no instance naturally lead us to look to Idumea.(4) the Septuagint renders the word Uz in Job 1:1. by Ασιτις Asitis - a word which seems to have been formed from the Hebrew עוץ ‛uts Utz, or Uz. Of course, their translation gives no intimation of the place referred to. But Ptolemy (Geog. Lib. v.) speaks of a tribe or nation in the neighborhood of Babylon, whom he calls Αυσιται Ausitai Ausitae (or as it was perhaps written Αισιται Aisitai ), the same word which is used by the Septuagint in rendering the word Uz. These people are placed by Ptolemy in the neighborhood of the Cauchebeni - υπο υεν τοις Καυχαβηνοις hupo men tois Kauchabenois - and he speaks of them as separated from Chaldea by a ridge of mountains. See Rosenm. Prolegomena, p. 27. This

location would place Job so near to the Chaldeans, that the account of their making an excursion into his country Job 1:17 would be entirely probable. - It may be added, also, that in the same neighborhood we find a town called Sabas ( Σαβας Sabas ) in Diodorus Sic. Lib. iii. Section 46. Prof. Lee, p. 32. These circumstances render it probable that the residence of the patriarch was west of Chaldea, and somewhere in the northern part of Arabia Deserta, between Palestine, Idumea, and the Euphratcs.(5) the monuments and memorials of Job still preserved or referred to in the East, may be adduced as some slight evidence of the fact that such a man as Job lived, and as an indication of the region in which he resided. It is true that they depend on mere tradition; but monuments are not erected to the memory of any who are not supposed to have had an existence, and traditions usually have some basis in reality. Arabian writers always make mention of Job as a real person, and his pretended grave is shown in the East to this day. It is shown indeed in six different places: but this is no evidence that all that is said of the existence of such a man is fabulous, anymore than the fact that seven cities contended for the honor of the birth of Homer is an evidence that there was no such man. The most celebrated tomb of this kind is that of the Trachonitis, toward the springs of the Jordan. It is situated between the cities still bearing the names of Teman, Shuah, and Naama - (Wemyss); though there is every reason to believe that these names have been given rather with reference to the fact that that was supposed to be his residence, than that they were the names of the places referred to in the book of Job. One of these tombs was shown to Niebuhr. He says (Reisebeschreib, i. 466, “Two or three hours east of Saada is a great mosque, in which, according to the opinion of the Arabs who reside there, the sufferer Job lies buried.” “On the eastern limits of Arabia, they showed me the grave of Job, close to the Euphrates, and near the Helleh, one hour south from Babylon.” is of importance to remark here only that all of these tombs are outside the limits of Idumea. Among the Arabians there are numerous traditions respecting Job, many of them indeed stories that are entirely ridiculous, but all showing the firm belief prevalent in Arabia that there was such a man. See Sale‘s Koran, vol. ii. pp. 174,322; Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, pp. 366,367; and D‘Herbelot, Bibli. Orient. tom. i. pp. 75,432,438, as quoted by Magee.(6) the present belief of the Arabians may be referred to as corroborating the results to which we have approximated in this inquiry, that the residence of Job was not in Idumea, but was in some part of Arabia Deserta, lying between

Palestine and the Euphrates. Eli Smith stated to me (November, 1840) that there was still a place in the Houran called by the Arabians, Uz; and that there is a tradition among them that that was the residence of Job. It is northeast of Bozrah. Bozrah was once the capital of Idumea (notes on Isaiah 34:6), though it was situated without the limits of their natural territory. If this tradition is well founded, then Job was not probably an Idumean. There is nothing that renders the tradition improbable, and the course of the investigation conducts us, with a high degree of probability, to the conclusion that this was the residence of Job. On the residence of Job and his friends, consult also Abrahami Peritsol Itinera Mundi, in Ugolin, Thes. Sac. vii. pp. 103-106.Section 3. The Time When Job LivedThere has been quite as much uncertainty in regard to the time when Job lived, as there has been in regard to the place where he lived. It should be observed here, that this question is not necessarily connected with the inquiry when the book was composed, and will not be materially affected, whether we suppose it to have been composed by Job himself, by Moses, or by a later writer. Whenever the book was composed, if at a later period than that in which the patriarch lived, the author would naturally conceal the marks of his own time, by referring only to such customs and opinions as prevailed in the age when the events were supposed to have occurred.On this question, we cannot hope to arrive at absolute certainty. It is remarkable that neither the genealogical record of the family of Job nor that of his three friends is given. The only record of the kind occurring in the book, is that of Elihu Job 32:2, and this is so slight as to furnish but little assistance in determining when he lived. The only circumstances which occur in regard to this question, are the following; and they will serve to settle the question with sufficient probability, as it is a question on which no important results can depend.(1) the age of Job. According to this, the time when he lived, would occur somewhere between the age of Terah, the father of Abraham, and Jacob, or about 1,800 years before Christ, and about 600 years after the deluge. For the reasons of this opinion, see the notes at Job 42:16. This estimate cannot pretend to be entirely accurate, but, it has a high degree of probability. If this estimate is correct, he lived not far from 400 years before the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, and before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; compare the notes at Acts 7:6.(2) as a slight confirmation of this opinion, we may refer to the traditions in

reference to the time when he lived. The account which is appended to the Septuagint, that he was a son of Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and the fifth in descent from Abraham, may be seen in the notes at Job 42:16. A similar account is given at the close of the Arabic translation of Job, so similar that the one has every appearance of having been copied from the other, or of their having had a common origin. “Job dwelt in the land of Uz, between the borders of Edom and Arabia, and was before called Jobab. He married a foreign wife, whose name was Anun. Job was himself a son of Zare, one of the sons of Esau; and his mother‘s name was Basra, and he was the sixth in descent from Abraham. But of the kings who reigned in Edom, the first who reigned over the land was Balak, the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Danaba. And after him Jobab, who is called Job; and after him the name of him who was prince of the land of Teman; and after him his son Barak, he who slew and put to flight Madian in the plain of Moab, and the name of his city was Gjates. And of the friends of Job who came to meet him, was Elifaz, of the sons of Esau, the king of the Temanites.” These traditions are worthless, except as they show the prevalent belief when these translations were made, that Job lived somewhere near the time of the three great Hebrew patriarchs.A nearly uniform tradition also has concurred in describing this as about the age in which he lived. The Hebrew writers generally concur in describing him as living in the days of Isaac and Jacob. Wemyss. Eusebius places him about two “ages” before Moses. The opinions of the Eastern nations generally concur in assigning this as the age in which he lived.(3) from the representations in the book itself, it is clear that he lived before the departure from Egypt. This is evident from the fact that there is no direct allusion either to that remarkable event, or to the series of wonders which accompanied it, or to the journey to the land of Canaan. This silence is unaccountable on any other supposition than that he lived before it occurred, for two reasons. One is, that it would have furnished the most striking illustration occurring in history, of the interposition by God in delivering his friends and in destroying the wicked, and was such an illustration as Job and his friends could not have failed to refer to, in defense of their opinions, if it were known to them; and the other is, that this event was the great storehouse of argument and illustration for all the sacred writers, after it occurred. The deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and the divine interposition in conducting the nation to the promised land, is constantly referred to by the sacred writers. They derive from those events their most magnificent

descriptions of the power and majesty of Yahweh. They refer to them as illustrating his character and government. They appeal to them in proof that he was the friend and protector of his people, and that he would destroy his foes. They draw from them their most sublime and beautiful poetic images, and are never weary with calling the attention of the people to their obligation to serve God, on account of his merciful and wonderful interposition. The very point of the argument in this book is one that would be better illustrated by that deliverance, than by any other event which ever occurred in history; and as this must have been known to the inhabitants of the country where Job lived, it is inexplicable that there is no allusion to these transactions, if they had already occurred.It is clear, therefore, that even if the book was written at a later period than the exode from Egypt, the author of the poem meant to represent the patriarch as having lived before that event. He has described him as one who was ignorant of it, and in such circumstances, and with such opinions, that he could not have failed to refer to it, if he was believed to have lived after that event. It is equally probable that Job lived before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This event occurred in the vicinity of the country where he lived, and he could not have been ignorant of it. It was, moreover, a case not less in point in the argument than the deliverance from Egypt was; and it is not conceivable that a reference to so signal a punishment on the wicked by the direct judgment of the Almighty, would have been omitted in an argument of the nature of that in this book. It was the very point maintained by the friends of Job, that God interposed by direct judgments to cut off the wicked; and the world never furnished a more appropriate illustration of this than had occurred in their own neighborhood, on the supposition that the calamities of Job occurred after that event.(4) the same thing is apparent also from the absence of all allusion to the Jewish rites, manners, customs, religious ceremonies, priesthood, festivals, fasts, sabbaths, etc. There will be occasion in another part of this introduction (Section 4) to inquire how far there is in fact such a lack of allusion to these things. All that is now meant is, that there is an obvious and striking lack of such allusions as we should expect to find made by one who lived at a later period, and who was familiar with the customs and religious rites of the Jews. The plan of the poem, it may be admitted, indeed, did not demand any frequent allusion to these customs and rites, and may be conceded to be adverse to such an allusion, even if they were known; but it is hardly conceivable that there should not have been some reference to them of more marked character than is now found. Even admitting

that Job was a foreigner, and that the author meant to preserve this impression distinctly, yet his residence could not have been far from the confines of the Jewish people; and one who manifested such decided principles of piety toward God as he did, could not but have had a strong sympathy with that people, and could not but have referred to their rites in an argument so intimately pertaining to the government of yahweh. The representation of Job, and the allusions in the book, are in all respects such as would occur on the supposition that he lived before the special Jewish polity was instituted.(5) the same thing is manifest from another circumstance. The religion of Job is of the same kind which we find prevailing in the time of Abraham, and before the institution of the Jewish system. It is a religion of sacrifices, but without any officiating priest. Job himself presents the offering, as the head of the family, in behalf of his children and his friends; Job 1:5; Job 42:8. There is no priest appointed for this office; no temple, tabernacle, or sacred place of any kind; no consecrated altar. Now this is just the kind of religion which we find prevailing among the patriarchs, until the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; and hence, it is natural to infer that Job lived anterior to that event. Thus, we find Noah building an altar to the Lord, and offering sacrifices, Genesis 8:20; Abraham offering a sacrifice himself in the same manner, Genesis 15:9-11; compare Genesis 12:1-13; and this was undoubtedly the earliest form of religion. Sacrifices were offered to God, and the father of a family was the officiating priest.These circumstances combined leave little doubt as to the time when Job lived. They concur in fixing the period as not remote from the age of Abraham, and there is no other period of history in which they will be found to unite. No question of great importance, however, depends on settling this question; and these circumstances determine the time with sufficient accuracy for all that is necessary, in an exposition of the book.Section 4. The Author of the BookA question of more vital importance than those which have been already considered, relates to the authorship of the book. As the name of the author is nowhere mentioned, either in the book itself or elsewhere in the Bible, it is of course impossible to arrive at absolute certainty; and after all that has been written on it, it is still and must be a point of mere conjecture. Still the question, as it is commonly discussed, opens a wide range of inquiry, and claims an investigation. If the name of the author cannot be discovered with certainty, it may be possible at least to decide with some degree of probability at what period

of the world it was committed to writing, and perhaps with a degree of probability that may be sufficiently satisfactory, by whom it was done.The first inquiry that meets us in the investigation of this point is, whether the whole book was composed by the same author, or whether the historical parts were added by a later hand. The slightest acquaintance with the book is sufficient to show, that there are in it two essentially different kinds of style - the poetic and prosaic. The body of the work, Job 2:1-13 and Job 42:7-17, is prose. The genuineness of the latter has been denied by many eminent critics, and particularly by DeWette, who regard it as the addition of some later hand. Against the prologue and the epilogue DeWette urges, “that the perfection of the work requires their rejection, because they solve the problem which is the subject of the discussion, by the idea of trial and compensation; whereas it was the design of the author to solve the question through the idea of entire submission on the part of man to the wisdom and power of God;” see Noyes, Intro. pp. xxi., xxii.To this objection it may be replied:(1) That we are to learn the view of the author only by all that he has presented to us. It may have been a part of his plan to exhibit just this view - not to present an abstract argument, but such an argument in connection with a real case, and to make it more vivid by showing an actual instance of calamity falling upon a pious man, and by a state of remarkable prosperity succeeding it. The presumption is, that the author of the poem designed to throw all the light possible on a very obscure and dark subject; and in order to that, a statement of the facts which preceded and followed the argument seems indispensable.(2) without the statement in the conclusion of the prosperity of Job after his trials, the argument of the book is incomplete. The main question is not solved. God is introduced in the latter chapters, not as solving by explicit statements the questions that had given so much perplexity, but as showing the duty of unqualified submission. But when this is followed by the historical statement of the return of Job to a state of prosperity, of the long life which he afterward enjoyed, and of the wealth and happiness which attended him for nearly a century and a half, the objections of his friends and his own difficulties are abundantly met, and the conclusion of the whole shows that God is not regardless of his people, but that, though they pass through severe trials, still they are the objects of his tender care.(3) besides, the prologue is necessary in order to understand the character, the language, and the arguments of Job. In the harsh and irreverent speeches which

he sometimes makes, in his fearful imprecations in Deuteronomy 34:1-12 must be supposed not to be the work of Moses himself, but of some later inspired writer.If there is, therefore, reason to believe that the whole work, substantially as we have it now, was committed to writing by the same hand, the question arises, whether there are any circumstances by which it can be determined with probability who the author was. On no question, almost, pertaining to sacred criticism, have there been so many contradictory opinions as on this. Lowth, Magee, Prof. Lee, and many others, regard it as the work of Job himself. Lightfoot and others ascribe it to Elihu; some of the rabbinical writers, as also Kennicott, Michaelis, Dathe, and Good, to Moses; Luther, Grotius, and Doederlin, to Solomon; Umbreit and Noyes to some writer who lived not far from the period of the Jewish captivity; Rosenmuller, Spanheim, Reimar, Stauedlin, and C. F. Richter, suppose that it was composed by some Hebrew writer about the time of Solomon; Warburton regards it as the production of Ezra; Herder (Hebrew Poetry, i. 110) supposes that it was written by some ancient Idumean, probably Job himself, and was obtained by David in his conquests over Idumea. He supposes that in the later writings of David he finds traces of his having imitated the style of this ancient book.It would be uninteresting and profitless to go into an examination of the reasons suggested by these respective authors for their various opinions. Instead of this, I propose to state the leading considerations which have occurred in the examination of the book itself, and of the reasons which have been suggested by these various authors, which may enable us to form a probable opinion. If the investigation shall result only in adding one more conjecture to those already formed, still it will have the merit of stating about all that seems to be of importance in enabling us to form an opinion in the case.I. The first circumstance that would occur to one in estimating the question about the authorship of the book, is the foreign cast of the whole work - the fact that it differs from the usual style of the Hebrew compositions. The customs, allusions, figures of speech, and modes of thought, to one who is familiar with the writings of the Hebrews, have a foreign air, and are such as evidently show that the speakers lived in some other country than Judea. There is, indeed, a common Oriental cast diffused over the whole work, enough to distinguish it from all the modes of composition in the Occidental world; but there is, also, scarcely less to distinguish it from the compositions which we know had their origin among the

Hebrews. The style of thought, and the general cast of the book, is Arabian. The allusions; the metaphors; the illustrations; the reference to historical events and to prevailing customs, are not such as an Hebrew would make; certainly not, unless in the very earliest periods of history, and before the character of the nation became so formed as to distinguish it characteristically from their brethren in the great family of the East. Arabian deserts; streams failing from drought; wadys filled in the winter and dry in the summer; moving hordes and caravans that come regularly to the same place for water; dwellings of tents easily plucked up and removed; the dry and stinted shrubbery of the desert; the roaring of lions and other wild beasts; periodical rains; trees planted on the verge of running streams; robbers and plunderers that rise before day, and make their attack in the early morning; the rights, authority, and obligation of the גאל go'el or avenger of blood; the claims of hospitality; the formalities of an Arabic court of justice, are the images which are kept constantly before the mind.Here the respect due to an Emir; the courtesy of manners which prevails among the more elevated ranks in the Arabic tribes; the profound attention which listens to the close while one is speaking, and which never interrupts him (Herder i. 81), so remarkable among well-bred Orientals at the present day, appear everywhere. It is true, that many of these things may find a resemblance in the undoubted Hebrew writings - for some of them are the common characteristics of the Oriental people - but still, no one can doubt that they abound in this book more than in any other in the Bible, and that, as we shall see more particularly soon, they are unmixed as they are elsewhere, with what is indubitably of Hebrew origin. In connection with this, it may be remarked that there are in the book an unusual number of words, whose root is found now only in the Arabic, and which are used in a sense not common in the Hebrew, but usual in the Arabic. Of this all will be convinced who, in interpreting the book, avail themselves of the light which Gesenius has thrown on numerous words from the Arabic, or who consult the Lexicon of Castell, or who examine the Commentaries of Schultens and Lee. That more importance has been attached to this by many critics than facts will warrant, no one can deny; but as little can it be denied that more aid can be derived from the Arabic language in interpreting this book, than in the exposition of any other part of the Bible. On this point Gesenius makes the following remarks “Altogether there is found in the book much resemblance to the Arabic, or which can be illustrated from the Arabic; but this is either Hebrew, and pertains to the poetic diction, or it is at the same time Aramaish, and was borrowed by the

poet from the Aramaean language, and appears here not as Aramaean but as Arabic. Yet there is not here proportionably more than in other poetic books and portions of books. It would be unjust to infer from this that the author of this book had any immediate connection with Arabia, or with Arabic literature.” Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und Schrift, S. 88. The fact of the Arabic cast of the work is conceded by Gesenius in the above extract; the inferences in regard to the connection of the book with Arabia and with Arabic literature which may be derived from this, is to be determined from other circumstances; compare Eichhorn, Einleitung, v. S. 163ff.II. A second consideration that may enable us to determine the question respecting the authorship of the book is, the fact that there are in it numerous undoubted allusions to events which occurred before the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, and the establishment of the Jewish institutions. The point of this remark is, that if we shall find such allusions, and also that there are no allusions to events occurring after that period, this is a circumstance which may throw some light on the authorship. It will at least enable us to fix, with some degree of accuracy, the time when the book was committed to writing. Now that there are manifest allusions to events occurring before that period, the following references will show; Job 10:9, “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay, and wilt thou bring me to dust again?” Here there is an allusion in almost so many words to the statements in Genesis 2:7; Genesis 3:19, respecting the manner in which man was formed - showing that Job was familiar with the account of the creation of man, Job 27:3, “All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;” Job 33:4, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life;” Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”Here there are undoubted allusions, also, to the manner in which man was formed - (compare Genesis 2:7) - allusions which show that the fact must have been made known to the speakers by tradition, since it is not such a fact as man would readily arrive at by reasoning. The imbecility and weakness of man also, are described in terms which imply an acquaintance with the manner in which he was created. “How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth;” Job 4:19. In Job 31:33, there is probably an allusion to the fact that Adam attempted to hide himself from God when he had eaten the forbidden fruit. “If I covered my

transgressions as Adam.” For the reasons for supposing that this refers to Adam, see the notes at the verse. In Job 22:15-16, there is a manifest reference to the deluge. “Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood?”See the notes on that passage. In connection with this we may refer also to the fact that the description of the modes of worship, and the views of religion, found in this book, show an acquaintance with the form in which worship was offered to God before the exode from Egypt. They are of precisely such a character as we find in the time of Abel, Noah, and Abraham. These events are not such as would occur to one who was not familiar with the historical facts recorded in the first part of the book of Genesis. They are not such as would result from a train of reasoning, but could only be derived from the knowledge of those events which would be spread over the East at that early period of the world. They demonstrate that the work was composed by one who had had an opportunity to become acquainted with what is now recorded as the Mosaic history of the creation, and of the early events of the world.III. There are no such allusions to events occurring after the exode from Egypt, and the establishment of the Jewish institutions. As this is a point of great importance in determining the question respecting the authorship of the book, and as it as been confidently asserted that there are such allusions, and as they have been made t

01 Chapter 1 Verse 1There was a man - This has all the appearance of being a true history. Many have regarded the whole book as a fiction, and have supposed that no such person as Job ever lived. But the book opens with the appearance of reality; and the express declaration that there was such a man, the mention of his name and of the place where he lived, show that the writer meant to affirm that there was in fact such a man. On this question see the Introduction, Section 1.In the land of Uz - On the question where Job lived, see also the Introduction, Section 2.Whose name was Job - The name Job (Hebrew איוב 'ıyob Gr. Ιωβ Iob means properly, according to Gesenius, “one persecuted,” from a root ( ayab' איב) meaning to be an enemy to anyone, to persecute, to hate. The primary idea, according to Gesenius, is to be sought in breathing, blowing, or puffing at, or

upon anyone, as expressive of anger or hatred, Germ. “Anschnauben.” Eichhorn (Einleit. section 638. 1,) supposes that the name denotes a man who turns himself penitently to God, from a sense of the verb still found in Arabic “to repent.” On this supposition, the name was given to him, because, at the close of the book, he is represented as exercising repentance for the improper expressions in which he had indulged during his sufferings. The verb occurs only once in the Hebrew Scriptures, Exodus 23:22: But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak, then “I will be an enemy” oyeb “unto thine' אויב enemies” את אויב 'eth 'oyeb participle איב 'oyeb is the common word to denote an enemy in the Old Testament, Exodus 15:6, Exodus 15:9; Leviticus 26:25; Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 32:27, Deuteronomy 32:42; Psalm 7:5; Psalm 8:2; Psalm 31:8; Lamentations 2:4-5; Job 13:24; Job 27:7; Job 33:10, “et soepe al.” If this be the proper meaning of the word “Job,” then the name would seem to have been given him by anticipation, or by common consent, as a much persecuted man. Significant names were very common among the Hebrews - given either by anticipation (see the notes at Isaiah 8:18), or subsequently, to denote some leading or important event in the life; compare Genesis 4:1-2, Genesis 4:25; Genesis 5:29; 1 Samuel 1:20 . Such, too, was the case among the Romans, where the “agnomen” thus bestowed became the appellation by which the individual was best known. Cicero thus received his name from a wart which he had on his face, resembling a “vetch,” and which was called by the Latins, “cicer.” Thus also Marcus had the name “Ancus,” from the Greek word ανκων ankon because he had a crooked arm; and thus the names Africanus, Germanicus, etc., were given to generals who had distinguished themselves in particular countries; see Univer. Hist. Anc. Part ix. 619, ed. 8vo, Lond. 1779. In like manner it is possible that the name “Job” was given to the Emir of Uz by common consent, as the man much persecuted or tried, and that this became afterward the appellation by which he was best known. The name occurs once as applied to a son of Issachar, Genesis 46:13, and in only two other places in the Bible except in this book; Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11.And that man was perfect - .( tamam תמם) The Septuagint have greatly expanded this statement, by giving a paraphrase instead of a translation. “He was a man who was true ( αληθινος alethinos ), blameless ( αμεμπτος amemptos ), just ( δικαιος dikaios ), pious ( θεοσεβης theosebes ), abstaining from every evil deed.” Jerome renders it, “simplex - simple,” or “sincere.” The Chaldee, שלם shalam “complete, finished, perfect.” The idea seems to be that his piety, or

moral character, was “proportionate” and was “complete in all its parts.” He was a man of integrity in all the relations of life - as an Emir, a father, a husband, a worshipper of God. Such is properly the meaning of the word תם tam as derived from תמם tamam “to complete, to make full, perfect” or “entire,” or “to finish.” It denotes that in which there is no part lacking to complete the whole - as in a watch in which no wheel is missing. Thus, he was not merely upright as an Emir, but he was pious toward God; he was not merely kind to his family, but he was just to his neighbors and benevolent to the poor. The word is used to denote integrity as applied to the heart, Genesis 20:5: בתם לבבי betam lebabıy “In the honesty, simplicity, or sincerity of my heart (see the margin) have I done this.” So 1 Kings 22:34 , “One drew a bow לתמו letumo in the simplicity (or perfection) of his heart;” that is, without any evil intention; compare 2 Samuel 15:11 ; Proverbs 10:9. The proper notion, therefore, is that of simplicity. sincerity, absence from guile or evil intention, and completeness of parts in his religion. That he was a man absolutely sinless, or without any propensity to evil, is disproved alike by the spirit of complaining which he often evinces, and by his own confession, Job 9:20:If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;If I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse.So also Job 42:5-6:I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,But now mine eye seeth thee;Wherefore I abhor myself,And repent in dust and ashes.Compare Ecclesiastes 7:20.And upright - The word yashar from ישר yashar to be straight, is applied ישר often to a road which is straight, or to a path which is level or even. As used here it means upright or righteous; compare Psalm 11:7; Psalm 37:14,; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 33:4.And one that feared God - Religion in the Scriptures is often represented as the fear of God; Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 1:29; Proverbs 2:5; Proverbs 8:13; Proverbs 14:26-27; Isaiah 11:2; Acts 9:31, “et soepe al.”And eschewed evil - “And departed from (סור sur ) evil.” Septuagint, “Abstaining from every evil thing.” These then are the four characteristics of Job‘s piety - he was sincere; upright; a worshipper of God; and one who abstained from all wrong. These are the essential elements of true religion everywhere; and the

whole statement in the book of Job shows Job was, though not absolutely free from the sins which cleave to our nature, eminent in each of these things.

Verse 2And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters - The same number was given to him again after these were lost, and his severe trials had been endured; see Job 42:13. Of his second family the names of the daughters are mentioned, Job 42:14. Of his first, it is remarkable that neither the names of his wife, his sons nor his daughters are recorded. The Chaldee, however, on what authority is unknown, says that the name of his wife was דינה dıynah Job 2:9.

Verse 3His substance - Margin, or “cattle.” The word used here מקנה mıqneh is derived from qanah to gain or קנה acquire, to buy or purchase, and properly means anything acquired or purchased - property, possessions, riches. The wealth of nomadic tribes, however, consisted mostly in flocks and herds, and hence the word in the Scripture signifies, almost exclusively, property in cattle. The word, says Gesenius, is used “strictly” to denote sheep, goats, and neat cattle, excluding beasts of burden (compare Greek κτηνος ktenos herd, used here by the Septuagint), though sometimes the word includes asses and camels, as in this place.Seven thousand sheep - In this verse we have a description of the wealth of an Arab ruler or chief, similar to that of those who are at this day called “Emirs.” Indeed the whole description in the book is that which is applicable to the chief of a tribe. The possessions referred to in this verse would constitute no inconsiderable wealth anywhere, and particularly in the nomadic tribes of the East. Land is not mentioned as a part of this wealth; for among nomadic tribes living by pasturage, the right to the soil in fee simple is not claimed by individuals, the right of pasturage or a temporary possession being all that is needed. For the same reason, and from the fact that their circumstances require them to live in movable tents, houses are not mentioned as a part; of the wealth of this Emir. To understand this book, as well as most of the books of the Old Testament, it is necessary for us to lay aside our notions of living, and transfer ourselves in imagination to the very dissimilar customs of the East. The Chaldee has made a very singular explanation of this verse, which must be regarded as the work of

fancy, but which shows the character of that version: “And his possessions were seven thousand sheep - a thousand for each of his sons; and three thousand camels - a thousand for each of his daughters; and five hundred yoke of oxen - for himself; and five hundred she-asses - for his wife.”And three thousand camels - Camels are well-known beasts of burden, extensively used still in Arabia. The Arabs employed these animals anciently in war, in their caravans, and for food. They are not unfrequently called “ships of the desert,” particularly valuable in arid plains because they go many days without water. They carry from three to five hundred pounds, in proportion to the distance which they have to travel. Providence has adapted the camel with wonderful wisdom to sandy deserts, and in all ages the camel must be an invaluable possession there. The driest thistle and the barest thorn is all the food that he requires, and this he eats while advancing on his journey without stopping or causing a moment‘s delay. As it is his lot to cross immense deserts where no water is found, and where no dews fall, he is endowed with the power of laying in a store of water that will suffice him for days - Bruce says for thirty days.To effect this, nature has provided large reservoirs or stomachs within him, where the water is kept pure, and from which he draws at pleasure as from a fountain. No other animal is endowed with this power, and were it not for this, it would be wholly impracticable to cross those immense plains of sand. The Arabians, the Persians, and others, eat the flesh of camels, and it is served up at the best tables in the country. One of the ancient Arab poets, whose hospitality grew into a proverb, is reported to have killed yearly, in a certain month, ten camels every day for the entertainment of his friends. In regard to the hardihood of camels, and their ability to live on the coarsest fare, Burckhardt has stated a fact which may furnish an illustration. In a journey which he made from the country south of the Dead Sea to Egypt, he says, “During the whole of this journey, the camels had no other provender than the withered shrubs of the desert, my dromedary excepted, to which I gave a few handfuls of barley each evening.” Trav. in Syria, p. 451; compare Bruce‘s Travels, vol. iv. p. 596; Niebuhr, Reise-beschreibung nach Arabien, 1Band, s. 215; Sandys, p. 138; Harmer‘s Obs. 4:415, ed. Lond. 1808,8vo; and Rob. Cal.And five hundred yoke of oxen - The fact that Job had so many oxen implies that he devoted himself to the cultivation of the soil as well as to keeping flocks and herds; compare Job 1:14. So large a number of oxen would constitute wealth anywhere.

And five hundred she-asses - Bryant remarks (Observations, p. 61) that a great part of the wealth of the inhabitants of the East often consisted of she-asses, the males being few and not held in equal estimation. She-asses are early mentioned as having been in common use to ride on; Numbers 22:25; Judges 5:10. 2 Kings 4:24 (Hebrew). One reason why the ass was chosen in preference to the horse, was that it subsisted on so much less than that animal, there being no animal except the camel that could be so easily kept as the ass. She-asses were also regarded as the most valuable, because, in traversing the deserts of the country they would furnish travelers with milk. It is remarkable that “cows” are not mentioned expressly in this enumeration of the articles of Job‘s wealth, though “butter” is referred to by him subsequently as having been abundant in his family, Job 29:6. It is possible, however, that “cows” were included as a part of the “five hundred yoke of baqar here rendered “oxen;” but which would be בקר quite as appropriately rendered “cattle.” The word is in the common gender, and is derived from בקר baqar in Arabic to cleave, to divide, to lay open, and hence, to plow, to cleave the soil. It denotes properly the animals used in plowing; and it is well known that cows are employed as well as oxen for this purpose in the East; see Judges 14:18; Hosea 4:10; compare Deuteronomy 32:14, where the word baqar is בקר used to denote a cow - “milk of kine,” Genesis 33:13 (Hebrew).And a very great household - Margin, “husbandry.” The Hebrew word here ( abuddah )ambiguous. - It may denote service rendered, that is, work, or‛ עבדהthe servants who performed it; compare Genesis 26:14, margin. The Septuagint renders it υπηρεσια huperesia Aquila δουλεια douleia and Symmachus, οικετια oiketia all denoting “service,” or “servitude,” or that which pertained to the domestic service of a family. The word refers doubtless to those who had charge of his camels, his cattle, and of his husbandry; see Job 1:15. It is not implied by the word here used, nor by that in Job 1:15, that they were “slaves.” They may have been, but there is nothing to indicate this in the narrative. The Septuagint adds to this, as if explanatory of it, “and his works were great in the land.”So that this man was the greatest - Was possessed of the most wealth, and was held in the highest honor.Of all the men of the East - Margin as in Hebrew “sons.” The sons of the East denote those who lived in the East. The word “East” qedem is commonly קדם employed in the Scriptures to denote the country which lies east of Palestine. For the places intended here, see the Introduction, Section 2, (3). It is of course

impossible to estimate with accuracy the exact amount of the value of the property of Job. Compared with many persons in modern times, indeed, his possessions would not be regarded as constituting very great riches. The Editor of the Pictorial Bible supposes that on a fair estimate his property might be considered as worth from thirty to forty thousand pounds sterling - equivalent to some 200,000 (circa 1880‘s). In this estimate the camel is reckoned as worth about 45.00 dollars, the oxen as worth about five dollars, and the sheep at a little more than one dollar, which it is said are about the average prices now in Western Asia. Prices, however, fluctuate much from one age to another; but at the present day such possessions would be regarded as constituting great wealth in Arabia. The value of the property of Job may be estimated from this fact, that he had almost half as many camels as constituted the wealth of a Persian king in more modern times.Chardin says, “as the king of Persia in the year 1676 was in Mesandera, the Tartars fell upon the camels of the king and took away three thousand of them which was to him a great loss, for he had only seven thousand.” - Rosenmuller, Morgenland, “in loc.” The condition of Job we are to regard as that of a rich Arabic Emir, and his mode of life as between the nomadic pastoral life, and the settled manner of living in communities like ours. He was a princely shepherd, and yet he was devoted to the cultivation of the soil. It does not appear, however, that he claimed the right of the soil in “fee simple,” nor is his condition inconsistent with the supposition that his residence in any place was regarded as temporary, and that all his property might be easily removed. “He belonged to that condition of life which fluctuated between that of the wandering shepherd, and that of a people settled in towns. That he resided, or had a residence, in a town is obvious; but his flocks and herds evidently pastured in the deserts, between which and the town his own time was probably divided. He differed from the Hebrew patriarchs chiefly in this, that he did not so much wander about “without any certain dwelling place.”This mixed condition of life, which is still frequently exhibited in Western Asia, will, we apprehend, account sufficiently for the diversified character of the allusions and pictures which the book contains - to the pastoral life and the scenes and products of the wilderness; to the scenes and circumstances of agriculture; to the arts and sciences of settled life and of advancing civilization.” - Pict. Bib. It may serve somewhat to illustrate the different ideas in regard to what constituted wealth in different countries, to compare this statement respecting

Job with a remark of Virgil respecting an inhabitant of ancient Italy, whom he calls the most wealthy among the Ausonian farmers:Seniorque Galaesua.Dum paci medium se offert; justissimus unusQui fuit, Ausoniisque olim ditissimus arvis:Quinque greges illi balantum. quina redibantArmenta, et terram centurn vertebat aratris.Aeneid 7:535-539.Among the rest, the rich Galaesus lies;A good old man, while peace he preached in vain,Amid the madness of the unruly train:Five herds, five bleating flocks his pasture filled,His lands a hundred yoke of oxen tilted.Dryden

Verse 4And his sons went and feasted in their houses - Dr. Good renders this, “and his sons went to hold a banquet house.” Tindal renders it, “made bankertea.” The Hebrew means, they went and made a “house-feast;” and the idea is, that they gave an entertainment in their dwellings, in the ordinary way in which such entertainments were made. The word used here (משתה mıshteh ) is derived from shathah “to שתה drink;” and then to drink together, to banquet. Schultens supposes that this was merely designed to keep up the proper familiarity between the different branches of the family, and not for purposes of revelry and dissipation; and this seems to accord with the view of Job. He, though a pious man, was not opposed to it, but he apprehended merely that they might have sinned in their hearts, Job 1:5. He knew the danger, and hence, he was more assiduous in imploring for them the divine guardianship.Every one his day - In his proper turn, or when his day came round. Perhaps it refers only to their birthdays; see Job 3:1, where the word “day” is used to denote a birthday. In early times the birthday was observed with great solemnity and rejoicing. Perhaps in this statement the author of the Book of Job means to intimate that his family lived in entire harmony, and to give a picture of his domestic happiness strongly contrasted with the calamities which came upon his household. It was a great aggravation of his sufferings that a family thus peaceful and harmonious was wholly broken up. - The Chaldee adds, “until seven days

were completed,” supposing that each one of these feasts lasted seven days, a supposition by no means improbable, if the families were in any considerable degree remote from each other.And sent and called for their three sisters - This also may be regarded as a circumstance showing that these occasions were not designed for revelry. Young men, when they congregate for dissipation, do not usually invite their “sisters” to be with them; nor do they usually desire the presence of virtuous females at all. The probability, therefore, is, that this was designed as affectionate and friendly family conversation. In itself there was nothing wrong in it, nor was there necessarily any danger; yet Job felt it “possible” that they might have erred and forgotten God, and hence, he was engaged in more intense and ardent devotion on their account; Job 1:5.

Verse 5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about - Dr. Good renders this, “as the days of such banquets returned.” But this is not the idea intended. It is, when the banquets had gone round as in a circle through all the families, “then” Job sent and sanctified them. It was not from an anticipation that they “would” do wrong, but it was from the apprehension that they “might” have sinned. The word rendered “were gone about” (נקף naqaph ) means properly to join together, and then to move round in a circle, to revolve, as festivals do; see the notes at Isaiah 29:1: “Let the festivals go round.” Here it means that the days of their banqueting had gone round the circle, or had gone round the several families. Septuagint “When the days of the entertainment (or drinking, ποτου potou ) were finished.” A custom of feasting similar to this prevails in China. “They have their fraternities which they call the brotherhood of the months; this consists of months according to the number of the days therein, and in a circle they go abroad to eat at one another‘s houses by turns. If one man has not conveniences to receive the fraternity in his own house, he may provide for them in another; and there are many public houses well furnished for this purpose.” See Semedo‘s History of China, i chapter 13, as quoted by Burder in Rosenmuller‘s Morgenland. “in loc.”That Job sent - Sent for them, and called them around him. He was apprehensive that they might have erred, and he took every measure to keep them pure, and to maintain the influence of religion in his family.

And sanctified them - This expression, says Schultens, is capable of two interpretations. It may either mean that he “prepared” them by various lustrations, ablutions, and other ceremonies to offer sacrifice; or that he offered sacrifices for the purpose of procuring expiation for sins which they might actually have committed. The former sense, he remarks, is favored by the use of the word in Exodus 19:10; 1 Samuel 16:5 , where the word means to prepare themselves by ablutions to meet God and to worship him. The latter sense is demanded by the connection. Job felt as every father should feel in such circumstances, that there was reason to fear that God had not been remembered as he ought to have been, and he was therefore more fervent in his devotions, and called them around him, that their own minds might be affected in view of his pious solicitude. What father is there who loves God, and who feels anxious that his children should also, who does not feel special solicitude if his sons and his daughters are in a situation where successive days are devoted to feasting and mirth? The word here rendered “sanctified” (קדש qadash ) means properly to be pure, clean, holy; in Pihel, the form used here, to make holy, to sanctify, to consecrate, as a priest; and here it means, that he took measures to make them holy on the apprehension that they had sinned; that is, he took the usual means to procure for them forgiveness. The Septuagint renders it εκαθαριζεν ekatharizen he purified them.And rose up early in the morning - For the purpose of offering his devotions, and procuring for them expiation. It was customary in the patriarchal times to offer sacrifice early in the morning. See Genesis 22:3; Exodus 32:6.And offered burnt-offerings - Hebrew “and caused to ascend;” that is, by burning them so that the smoke ascended toward heaven. The word rendered “burnt-offerings” (עולה ‛olah ) is from עלה ‛alah “to ascend” (the word used here and rendered “offered”), and means that which was made to ascend, to wit, by burning. It is applied in the Scriptures to a sacrifice that was wholly consumed on the altar, and answers to the Greek word ολοκαυστον holokauston “Holocaust.” See the notes at Isaiah 1:11. Such offerings in the patriarchal times were made by the father of a family, officiating as priest in behalf of his household. Thus, Noah officiated, Genesis 8:20; and thus also Abraham acted as the priest to offer sacrifice, Genesis 12:7-8; Genesis 13:18; Genesis 22:13. In the earliest times, and among pagan nations, it was supposed that pardon might be procured for sin by offering sacrifice. In Homer there is a passage which remarkably corresponds with the view of Job before us; Iliad 9:493:

The gods (the great and only wise)Are moved by offerings, vows, and sacrifice;Offending man their high compassion wins,And daily prayers atone for daily sins.PopeAccording to the number of them all - Sons and daughters. Perhaps an additional sacrifice for each one of them. The Septuagint renders this, “according to their numbers, και μοσχον ενα περι αμαπτιας περι των ψυχων αυτων kai moschon hena peri hamartias peri ton psuchon auton - a young bullock for sin or a sin-offering for their souls.”It may be that my sons have sinned - He had no positive or certain proof of it. He felt only the natural apprehension which every pious father must, that his sons might have been overtaken by temptation, and perhaps, under the influence of wine, might have been led to speak reproachfully of God, and of the necessary restraints of true religion and virtue.And cursed God in their hearts - The word here rendered curse is that which is usually rendered “bless” ברך barak It is not a little remarkable that the same word is used in senses so directly opposite as to “bless” and “to curse.” Dr. Good contends that the word should be always rendered “bless,” and so translates it in this place, “peradventure my sons may have sinned, “nor” blessed God in their hearts,” understanding the Hebrew prefix ( v) ו as a disjunctive or negative participle. So too in Job 2:9, rendered in our common translation, “curse God and die,” he translates it, “blessing God and dying.” But the interpretation which the connection demands is evidently that of cursing, renouncing, or forgetting; and so also it is in Job 2:9. This sense is still more obvious in 1 Kings 21:10 : “Thou didst “blaspheme” barak God and the king.” So also ברך 1 Kings 21:13 of the same chapter - though here Dr. Good contends that the word should be rendered “bless,” and that the accusation was that Naboth “blessed” or worshipped the gods, even Moloch - where he supposes the word מלך melek should be pointed molek and read “Molech.” But the difficulty is not removed by this, and after מלךall it is probable that the word here, as in Job 2:9, means to “curse.” So it is understood by nearly all interpreters. The Vulgate indeed renders it singularly enough, “Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God (et benedixerint Deo) in their hearts.” The Septuagint, “Lest perhaps my sons in their mind have thought evil toward God” - κακα ενεοησαν προς Θεον kaka enenoesan pros Theon The Chaldee, “Lest my sons have sinned and provoked

yahweh ( וארגיזדקדם יהוה ) in their hearts.” Assuming that this is the sense of the word here, there are three ways of accounting for the fact that the same word should have such opposite significations.(1) One is that proposed by Taylor (Concor.), that pious persons of old regarded blasphemy as so abominable that they abhorred to express it by the proper name, and that therefore by an “euphemism” they used the term “bless” instead of “curse.” But it should be said that nothing is more common in the Scriptures than words denoting cursing and blasphemy. The word אלה 'alah in the sense of cursing or execrating, occurs frequently. So the word gadaph means גדף to blaspheme, and is often used; 2 Kings 19:6 , 2 Kings 19:22 ; Isaiah 37:6, Isaiah 37:23; Psalm 44:16. Other words also were used in the same sense, and there was no necessity of using a mere “euphemism” here.(2) A second mode of accounting for this double use of the word is. that this was the common term of salutation between friends at meeting and parting. It is then supposed to have been used in the sense of the English phrase “to bid farewell to.” And then, like that phrase, to mean “to renounce, to abandon, to dismiss from the mind, to disregard.” The words χαιρειν chairein in Greek, and “valere” in Latin, are used in this way. This explanation is suggested by Schultens, and is adopted by Rosenmuller and Noyes, who refer to the following places as parallel instances of the use of the word. Virg. Ecl. 8,58. “Vivite Sylvoe ” - a form, says the Annotator on Virgil (Delphin), of bidding farewell to, like the Greek χαιρετε chairete - “a form used against those whom we reject with hatred, and wish to depart.” Thus, Catull. 11. 17: Cum suis vivat, valeatque moechis. So Aesch. Agam. 574:Και πολλα χαιρειν ξυμφοραις καταξιω polla chairein cumforais katacio Plutarch, Dion. p. 975. So Cicero in a letter to Atticus (Psalm 8:8), in which he complains of the disgraceful flight of Pompey, applies to him a quotation from Aristophanes; πολλα χαιρειν ειπων τω καλω polla chairein eipon to kalo - “bidding farewell to honour he fled to Brundusium;” compare Ter. And. 4:2. 14. Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. 44. According to this interpretation, it means that Job apprehended they had renounced God in their hearts. that is, had been unmindful of him, and had withheld from him the homage which was due. - This is plausible: but the difficulty is in making out the use of this sense of the word in Hebrew. That the word was used as a mode of “parting salutation” among the Hebrews is undoubted. It was a solemn form of invoking the divine blessing when friends separated; compare Genesis 28:3; Genesis 47:10. But I find no use of the word

where it is applied to separation in the sense of “renouncing,” or bidding farewell to “in a bad sense;” and unless some instances of this kind can be adduced, the interpretation is unsound, and though similar phrases are used in Greek, Latin, and other languages, it does not demonstrate that this use of the word obtained in the Hebrew.(3) A third, and more simple explanation is that which supposes that the original sense of the word was “to kneel.” This, according to Gesenius, is the meaning of the word in Arabic. So Castell gives the meaning of the word - “to bend the knees for the sake of honour;” that is, as an act of respect. So in Syriac, “Genua flexit procubuit So “Genu the “knee.” Then it means to bend the knee for the purpose of invoking God, or worshipping. In the Piel, the form used here, it means(1) to bless God, to celebrate, to adore;(2) to bless men - that is, to “invoke” blessings on them; to greet or salute them - in the sense of invoking blessings on them when we meet them; 1 Samuel 15:13 ; Genesis 47:7; 2 Samuel 6:20 ; or when we part from them; Genesis 47:10; 1 Kings 8:66 ; Genesis 24:60;(3) to “invoke evil,” in the sense of “cursing others.” The idea is, that punishment or destruction is from God, and hence, it is “imprecated” on others. In one word, the term is used, as derived from the general sense of kneeling, in the sense of “invoking” either blessings or curses; and then in the general sense of blessing or cursing. This interpretation is defended by Selden, de jure Nat. et Gent. Lib. II. 100:11:p. 255, and by Gesenius, Lexicon. The idea here is, that Job apprehended that his sons, in the midst of mirth, and perhaps revelry, had been guilty of irreverence, and perhaps of reproaching God inwardly for the restraints of virtue and piety. What is more common in such scenes? What was more to be apprehended?Thus did Job continually - It was his regular habit whenever such an occasion occurred. He was unremitted in his pious care; and his solicitude lest his sons should have sinned never ceased - a beautiful illustration of the appropriate feelings of a pious father in regard to his sons. The Hebrew is, “all day;” that is, at all times.

Verse 6Now there was a day - Dr. Good renders this, “And the day came.” Tindal.” Now upon a time.” The Chaldee paraphrasist has presumed to specify the time, and renders it, “Now it happened in the day of judgment (or scrutiny, ביומא דדינא ), “in

the beginning of the year,” that hosts of angels came to stand in judgment before yahweh, and Satan came.” According to this, the judgment occurred once a year, and a solemn investigation was had of the conduct even of the angels. In the Hebrew there is no intimation of the frequency with which this occurred, nor of the time of the year when it happened. The only idea is, that “the sons of God” on a set or appointed day came to stand before God to give an account of what they had done, and to receive further orders in regard to what they were to do. - This is evidently designed to introduce the subsequent events relating to Job. It is language taken from the proceedings of a monarch who had sent forth messengers or ambassadors on important errands through the different provinces of his empire, who now returned to give an account of what they had observed, and of the general state of the kingdom. Such a return would, of course, be made on a fixed day when, in the language of the law, their report would be “returnable,” and when they would be required to give in an account of the state of the kingdom. If it be said that it is inconsistent with the supposition that this book was inspired to suppose such a poetic fiction, I reply,(1) That it is no more so than the parables of the Savior, who often supposes cases, and states them as real occurrences, in order to illustrate some important truth. Yet no one was ever led into error by this.(2) It is in accordance with the language in the Scripture everywhere to describe God as a monarch seated on his throne, surrounded by his ministers, and sending them forth to accomplish important purposes in different parts of his vast empire.It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to regard this as designed to represent an actual occurrence. It is one of the admissible ornaments of poetry; - as admissible as any other poetic ornament. To represent God as a king is not improper; and if so, it is not improper to represent him with the usual accompaniments of royalty, - surrounded by ministers, and employing angels and messengers for important purposes in his kingdom. This supposition being admitted, all that follows is merely in “keeping,” and is designed to preserve the verisimilitude of the conception. - This idea, however, by no means militates against the supposition that angels are in fact really employed by God in important purposes in the government of his kingdom, nor that Satan has a real existence, and is permitted by God to employ an important agency in the accomplishment of his purposes toward his people. On this verse, however, see the Introduction, Section 1, (4).

The sons of God - Angels; compare Job 38:7. The whole narrative supposes that they were celestial beings.Came to present themselves - As having returned from their embassy, and to give an account of what they had observed and done.Before the Lord - Before yehovah On the meaning of this word, see the יהוה notes at Isaiah 1:2. A scene remarkably similar to this is described in 1 Kings 22:19-23. Yahweh is there represented as “sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.” He inquires who would go and persuade Ahab that he might go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? “And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.” This he promised to do by being “a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.”And Satan came also among them - Margin, “The adversary” came “in the midst of them.” On the general meaning of this passage, and the reasons why Satan is introduced here, and the argument thence derived respecting the age and authorship of the book of Job, see the Introduction, Section 4, (4). The Vulgate renders this by the name “Satan.” The Septuagint: ο διαβολος ho diabolos - the devil, or the accuser. The Chaldee, סטנא satena' “Satan.” So the Syriac. Theodotion, ο αντικειμενος ho antikeimenos - “the adversary.” The word rendered “Satan” שטן satan is derived from שטן satan “Satan,” to lie in wait, to be an adversary, and hence, it means properly an adversary, an accuser. It is used to denote one who “opposes,” as in war 1 Kings 11:14 , 1 Kings 11:23 , 1 Kings 11:25; 1 Samuel 29:4 ; onc who is an adversary or an accuser in a court of justice Psalm 109:6, and one who stands in the way of another; Numbers 22:22, “And the angel of yahweh stood in the way for an adversary against him” לשטן לה lesatan loh “to oppose him.”It is then used by way of eminence, to denote the “adversary,” and assumes the form of a proper name, and is applied to the great foe of God and man - the malignant spirit who seduces people to evil, and who accuses them before God. Thus, in Zechariah 3:1-2, “And he showed me Joshua the priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Loan said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan;” compare Revelation 12:10, “Now is come salvation - for the accuser ο κατηγορων ho kategoron - that is, Satan, see Revelation 12:9) of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” - The word does not often occur in the Old Testament. It is found in the various forms of a verb and a noun in only the

following places. As a verb, in the sense of being an adversary, Psalm 71:13; Psalm 109:4, Psalm 109:20, Psalm 109:29; Zechariah 3:1; Psalm 38:20; as a noun, rendered “adversary” and “adversaries,” 1 Kings 5:4 ; 1 Kings 11:14 , 1 Kings 11:23 , 1 Kings 11:25 ; Numbers 22:22, Numbers 22:32; 1 Samuel 29:4 ; 2 Samuel 19:22 ; rendered “Satan,” 1 Chronicles 21:1 ; Psalm 109:6; Job 1:6-9, Job 1:12; Job 2:1-4, Job 2:6-7; Zechariah 3:2; and once rendered “an accusation,” Ezra 4:6.It was a word, therefore, early used in the sense of an adversary or accuser, and was applied to anyone who sustained this character, until it finally came to be used as a proper name, to denote, by way of eminence, the prince of evil spirits, as the adversary or accuser of people. An opinion has been adopted in modern times by Herder, Eichhorn, Dathe, Ilgen, and some others, that the being here referred to by the name of Satan is not the malignant spirit, the enemy of God, the Devil, but is one of the sons of God, “a faithful, but too suspicious servant of yahweh.” According to this, God is represented as holding a council to determine the state of his dominions. In this council, Satan, a zealous servant of yahweh, to whom had been assigned the honorable office of visiting different parts of the earth, for the purpose of observing the conduct of the subjects of yahweh, makes his appearance on his return with others.Such was the piety of Job, that it had attracted the special attention of yahweh, and he puts the question to Satan, whether in his journey be had remarked this illustrious example of virtue. Satan, who, from what he has observed on earth, is supposed to have lost all confidence in the reality and genuineness of the virtue which man may exhibit, suggests that he doubts whether even Job serves God from a disinterested motive; that God had encompassed him with blessings, and that his virtue is the mere result of circumstances; and that if his comforts were removed he would be found as destitute of principle as any other man. Satan, according to this, is a suspicious minister of yahweh, not a malignant spirit; he inflicts on Job only what he is ordered to by God, and nothing because he is himself malignant. Of this opinion Gesenius remarks (Lexicon), that it “is now universally exploded.”An insuperable objection to this view is, that it does not accord with the character usually ascribed to Satan in the Bible, and especially that the disposition attributed to him in the narrative before us is wholly inconsistent with this view. He is a malignant being; an accuser; one delighting in the opportunity of charging a holy man with hypocrisy, and in the permission to inflict tortures on him, and

who goes as far in producing misery as he is allowed - restrained from destroying him only by the express command of God. - In Arabic the word Satan is often applied to a serpent. Thus, Gjauhari, as quoted by Schultens, says, “The Arabs call a serpent Satan, especially one that is conspicuous by its crest, head, and odious appearance.” It is applied also to any object or being that is evil. Thus, the Scholiast on Hariri, as quoted by Schultens also, says, “Everything that is obstinately rebellious, opposed, and removed from good, of genii, human beings, and beasts, is called Satan.” - The general notion of an adversary and an opponent is found everywhere in the meaning of the word. - Dr. Good remarks on this verse, “We have here another proof that, in the system of patriarchal theology, the evil spirits, as well as the good, were equally amenable to the Almighty, and were equally cited, at definite periods, to answer for their conduct at his bar.”Rosenmuller remarks well on this verse, “It is to be observed, that Satan, no less than the other celestial spirits, is subject to the government of God, and dependent on his commands (compare Job 2:1) where Satan equally with the sons of God ( בן אלהים ben 'elohıym ) is said to present himself before God ( lehıtyatseb that is, λειτουργειν leitourgein ), to minister. Yahweh uses the לחהיצבministry of this demon (hujus daemonis) to execute punishment, or when from any other cause it seemed good to him to send evil upon men. But he, although incensed against the race of mortals, and desirous of injuring, is yet described as bound with a chain, and never dares to touch the pious unless God relaxes the reins. Satan, in walking round the earth, could certainly attentively consider Job, but to injure him he could not, unless permission had been given him.”

Verse 7And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? - This inquiry does not appear to have been made as if it was improper that Satan should have appeared there, for no blame seems to have been attached to him for this. He came as a spirit that was subject to the control of yahweh; he came with others, not to mingle in their society, and partake of their happiness, but to give an account of what he had done, and of what he had observed. The poetic idea is, that this was done periodically, and that “all” the spirits employed by yahweh to dispense blessings to mortals, to inflict punishment, or to observe their conduct, came and stood before him. Why the inquiry is directed particularly to “Satan,” is not specified. Perhaps it is not meant that there was any “special” inquiry made

of him, but that, as he was to have so important an agency in the transactions which follow, the inquiry that was made of him only is recorded In respect to the others, nothing occurred pertaining to Job, and their examination is not adverted to. Or it may be, that, as Satan was known to be malignant, suspicious, and disposed to think evil of the servants of God, the design was to direct his attention particularly to Job as an illustrious and indisputable example of virtue and piety.From going to and fro in the earth - Dr. Good renders this, “from roaming round.” Noyes, “from wandering over.” The word which is here used (שוט shut ) means properly,(1.) to whip, to scourge, to lash;(2.) to row, that is, to lash the sea with oars;(3.) to run up and down, to go here and there, or to and fro, so as to lash the air with one‘s arms as with oars, and hence, to travel over a land, or to go through it in order to see it, 2 Samuel 24:2 , 2 Samuel 24:8 .Dr. Good, in conformity with the interpretation proposed by Schultens, says that “the word imports, not so much the act of going forward and backward, as of making a circuit or circumference; of going round about. The Hebrew verb is still in use among the Arabic writers, and in every instance implies the same idea of gyration or circumambulation.” In Arabic, according to Castell, the word means “to heat, to burn, to cause to boil, to consume:” then to propel to weariness, as e. g. a horse, and then to make a circuit, to go about at full speed, to go with diligence and activity. Thus, in Carnuso, as quoted by Schultens, “a course made at one impulse to the goal is called שוט shot In 2 Samuel 24:2 , the word is used in the sense of passing around through different places for the purpose of taking a census. “Go now (Margin, “compass”) through all the tribes of Israel.” In Numbers 11:8, it is applied to the Israelites going about to collect manna, passing rapidly and busily in the places where it fell for the purpose of gathering it.In Zechariah 4:10, it is applied to “the eyes of Yahweh,” which are said to “run to and fro through the earth,” that is, he surveys all things as one does whose eye passes rapidly from object to object. The same phrase occurs in 2 Chronicles 16:9. In Jeremiah 5:1, it is applied to the action of a man passing rapidly through the streets of a city. “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem “compare Jeremiah 49:3. From these passages it is clear that the idea is not that of going “in a circuit” or circle, but it is that of passing rapidly; of moving with alacrity and in a hurry; and it is not improbable that the “original” idea is that

suggested in the Arabic of “heat” - and thence applied to a whip or scourge because it produces a sensation like burning, and also to a rapid journey or motion, because it produces heat or a glow. It means that Satan had been active and diligent in passing from place to place in the earth to survey it. The Chaldee adds to this, “to examine into the works of the sons of men.”And from walking - That is, to investigate human affairs. On this verse it is observed by Rosenmullcr, that in the life of Zoroaster (see Zendavesta by John G. Kleukner, vol. 3: p. 11,) the prince of the evil demons, the angel of death, whose name is “Engremeniosch,” is said to go far and near through the world for the purpose of injuring and opposing good people.

Verse 8Hast thou considered my servant Job? - Margin, “Set thine heart on.” The margin is a literal translation of the Hebrew. Schultens remarks on this, that it means more than merely to observe or to look at - since it is abundantly manifest from the following verses that Satan “had” attentively considered Job, and had been desirous of injuring him. It means, according to him, to set himself against Job, to fix the heart on him with an intention to injure him, and yahweh means to ask whether Satan had done this. But it seems more probable that the phrase means to consider “attentively,” and that God means to ask him whether he had carefully observed him. Satan is represented as having no confidence in human virtue, and as maintaining that there was none which would resist temptation, if presented in a form sufficiently alluring. God here appeals to the case of Job as a full refutation of this opinion. The trial which follows is designed to test the question whether the piety of Job was of this order.That there is none like him in the earth - That he is the very highest example of virtue and piety on earth. Or might not the word כי kıy here be rendered “for?” “For there is none like him in the earth.” Then the idea would be, not that he had considered “that” there was none like him, but God directs his attention to him “because” he was the most eminent among mortals.A perfect and an upright man - See the Notes at Job 1:1. The Septuagint translates this verse as they do Job 1:1.

Verse 9Doth Job fear God for nought? - “Is his religion disinterested? Would not anyone be willing to worship God in such circumstances?” The idea is that there

was nothing genuine about his piety; that religion could not be tried in prosperity; that Job had an abundant compensation for serving God, and that if the favors conferred on him were taken away, he would be like the rest of mankind. Much of the apparent virtue and religion of the world is the result of circumstances, and the question here proposed “may,” it is to be feared, be asked with great propriety of many professors of religion who are rich; it “should” be asked by every professed friend of the Most High, whether his religion is not selfish and mercenary. Is it because God has blessed us with great earthly advantages? Is it the result of mere gratitude? Is it because he has preserved us in peril, or restored us from sickness? Or is it merely because we hope for heaven, and serve God because we trust he will reward us in a future world? All this may be the result of mere selfishness; and of all such persons it may be appropriately asked, “Do they fear God for nought?” True religion is not mere gratitude, nor is it the result of circumstances. It is the love of religion for its own sake - not for reward; it is because the service of God is right in itself, and not merely because heaven is full of glory; it is because God is worthy of our affections and confidence, and not merely because he will bless us - and this religion will live through all external changes, and survive the destruction of the world. It will flourish in poverty as well as when surrounded by affluence; on a bed of pain as well as in vigorous health; when we are calumniated and despised for our attachment to it, as well as when the incense of flattery is burned around us, and the silvery tones of praise fall on our ear; in the cottage as well as the palace; on the pallet of straw as well as on the bed of down.

Verse 10Hast thou not made an hedge about him? - Dr. Good remarks, that to give the original word here its full force, it should be derived from the science of engineering, and be rendered, “Hast thou not raised a “palisado” about him?” The Hebrew word used here (שוך suk ) properly means “to hedge”; to hedge in or about; and hence, to protect, as one is defended whose house or farm is hedged in either with a fence of thorns, or with an enclosure of stakes or palisades. The word in its various forms is used to denote, as a noun, “pricks in the eyes” Numbers 33:55; that is, that which would be like thorns; “barbed irons” Job 41:7, that is, the barbed iron used as a spear to take fish; and a hedge, and thorn hedge, Micah 7:4; Proverbs 15:19; Isaiah 5:5. The idea here is, that of making an enclosure around Job and his possessions to guard them from danger. The

Septuagint renders it περιεφραξας periephracas to make a defense around,” to “circumvallate” or inclose, as a camp is in war. In the Syriac and Arabic it is rendered, “Hast thou not protected him with thy hand? The Chaldee, “Hast thou protected him with thy word? The Septuagint renders the whole passage, “Hast thou not encircled the things which are without him” ( τα εξω αυτου ta exo autou ) that is, the things abroad which belong to him, “and the things within his house.” The sense of the whole passage is, that he was eminently under the divine protection, and that God had kept himself, his family, and property from plunderers, and that therefore he served and feared him.Thou hast blessed the work of his hands - Thou hast greatly prospered him.And his substance is increased in the land - His property, Job 1:3. Margin, “cattle.” The word “increased” here by no means expresses the force of the original. The word פרץ parats means properly to break, to rend, then to break or burst forth as waters do that have been pent up; 2 Samuel 5:20 , compare Proverbs 3:10, “So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses “shall burst out” parats with new wine;” that is, thy wine-fats shall be so full that פרץ they shall overflow, or “burst” the barriers, and the wine shall flow out in abundance. The Arabians, according to Schultens, employ this word still to denote the mouth or “embouchure” - the most; rapid part of a stream. So Golius, in proof of this, quotes from the Arabic writer Gjanhari, a couplet where the word is used to denote the mouth of the Euphrates:“His rushing wealth o‘er flowed him with its heaps;So at its mouth the mad Euphrates sweeps.”According to Sehultens, the word denotes a place where a river bursts forth, and makes a new way by rending the hills and rocks asunder. In like manner the flocks and herds of Job had burst, as it were, every barrier, and had spread like an inundation over the land; compare Genesis 30:43; 2 Chronicles 31:5 ; Exodus 1:7; Job 16:14.

Verse 11But put forth thine hand now - That is, for the purpose of injuring him, and taking away his property.And touch all that he hath - Dr. Good renders this, “and smite.” The Vulgate and the Septuagint, “touch.” The Hebrew word used here naga‛ means נגע properly to “touch;” then to touch anyone with violence Genesis 26:11; Joshua 9:19, and then to smite, to injure, to strike; see Genesis 32:26,33; 1 Samuel 6:9 ;

Job 19:21; compare the notes at Isaiah 53:4. Here it means evidently to smite or strike; and the idea is, that if God should take away the property of Job, he would take away his religion with it - and the trial was to see whether this effect would follow.And he will curse thee to thy face - He will do it openly and publicly. The word rendered “curse” here ברך barak is the same as that used in Job 1:5, and which is usually rendered “bless;” see the notes at Job 1:5. Dr. Good contends that; it should be rendered here “bless,” and translates it as a question: “Will he then, indeed, bless thee to thy face?” But in this he probably stands alone. The evident sense is, that Job would openly renounce God, and curse him on his throne; that all his religion was caused merely by his abundant prosperity, and was mere gratitude and selfishness; and that if his property were taken away, he would become the open and avowed enemy of him who was now his benefactor.

Verse 12All that he hath is in thy power - Margin, as in Hebrew “hand.” That is, all this is now committed to thee, for it is manifest that hitherto Satan had no power to injure even his property. He complained that God had made a hedge around all that Job possessed. Now it was all entrusted to him in order that he might make full trim of the faith of Job. The grant extended to his sons and daughters as well as to his property.Only upon himself put not forth thine hand - Job himself was not to be visited with sickness nor was his life to be taken. The main accusation of Satan was, that Job was virtuous only because God encompassed him with so many blessings, and especially because he had endowed him with so much property. The trial, therefore, only required that it should be seen whether his piety was the mere result of these blessings.So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord - That is from the council which had been convened; see the notes at Job 1:6.

Verse 13And there was a day - That is, on the day on which the regular turn came for the banquet to be held in the house of the older brother; compare the notes at Job 1:4.

And drinking wine - This circumstance is omitted in Job 1:4. It shows that wine was regarded as an essential part of the banquet, and it was from its use that Job apprehended the unhappy results referred to in Job 1:5.

Verse 14And there came a messenger unto Job - Hebrew mal'ak the מלאך word usually rendered “angel,” appropriately rendered “messenger” here. The word properly means “one who is sent.”The oxen were plowing - Hebrew “the cattle” (בקר baqar ) including not merely “oxen,” but probably also “cows;” see the notes at Job 1:3.And the asses - Hebrew athon “she-asses.” The “sex” is here expressly' אתון mentioned and Dr. Good maintains that it should be in the translation. So it is in the Septuagint αι θηλειαι ονοι hai theleiai onoi So Jerome, “asinoe.” The reason why the sex is specified is, that female asses, on account of their milk, were much more valuable than males. On this account they were preferred also for traveling; see the notes at Job 1:3.Beside them - Hebrew “By their hands,” that is, by their sides, for the Hebrew יד yad is often used in this sense; compare the notes at Isaiah 33:21.

Verse 15And the Sabeans - Hebrew שבא sheba' Vulgate, “Suboei.” The Septuagint gives a paraphrase, και ελθοντες οι αιχμαλωτευοντες ηχμαλωτευσαν kai elthonia hoi aichmaloteuontes echmaloteusan “And the plunderers coming, plundered them,” or made them captive. On the situation of Sheba and Seba, see Isaiah 43:3, note; Isaiah 45:14, note; Isaiah 9:6, note. The people here referred to were, undoubtedly, inhabitants of some part of Arabia Felix. There are three persons of the name of Sheba mentioned in the Scriptures.(1) A grandson of Cush; Genesis 10:7.(2) A son of Joktan; Genesis 10:28.(3) A son of Jokshan, the son of Abraham by Keturah.“Calmet.” The Sheba here referred to was probably in the southern part of Arabia, and from the narrative it is evident that the Sabeans here mentioned were a predatory tribe. It is not improbable that these tribes were in the habit of wandering for purposes of plunder over the whole country, from the banks of the Euphrates to the outskirts of Egypt. The Bedawin Arabs of the present day resemble in a remarkable manner the ancient inhabitants of Arabia, and for many

centuries the manners of the inhabitants of Arabia have not changed, for the habits of the Orientals continue the same from age to age. The Syriac renders this simply, “a multitude rushed” upon them;” omitting the word “Sabean.”Fell upon them - With violence; or rushed unexpectedly upon them. This is the way in which the Arab tribes now attack the caravan, the traveler, or the village, for plunder.And took them away - As plunder. It is common now to make such sudden incursions, and to carry off a large booty.They have slain the servants - Hebrew נערים na‛arıym “the young men.” The word ,na‛ar properly means a “boy,” and is applied to an infant just born נער Exodus 2:6; Judges 13:5, Judges 13:7; or to a youth, Genesis 34:19; Genesis 41:12. It came then to denote a servant or slave, like the Greek παις pais Genesis 24:2; 2 Kings 5:20 ; compare Acts 5:6. So the word “boy” is often used in the Southern States of North America to denote a slave. Here it evidently means the servants that were employed in cultivating the lands of Job, and keeping his cattle. There is no intimation that they were slaves. Jerome renders it “pueros, boys;” so the Septuagint τους παιδας tous paidas And I only am escaped alone - By myself, בד bad There is no other one with me. It is remarkable that the same account is given by each one of the servants who escaped, Job 1:16-17, Job 1:19. The Chaldee has given a very singular version of this - apparently from the desire of accounting for everything, and of mentioning the “names” of all the persons intended. “The oxen were plowing, and Lelath, queen of Zamargad, suddenly rushed upon them, and carried them away.”

Verse 16While he was yet speaking - All this indicates the rapidity of the movement of Satan, and his desire to “overwhelm” Job with the suddenness and greatness of his calamities. The. object seems to have been to give him no time to recover from the shock of one form of trial before another came upon him. If an interval had been given him he might have rallied his strength to bear his trials; but afflictions are much more difficult to be borne when they come in rapid succession. - It is not a very uncommon occurrence, however, that the righteous are tried by the rapidity and accumulation as well as the severity of their afflictions. It has passed into a proverb that “afflictions do not come alone.”The fire of God. - Margin, “A great fire;” evidently meaning a flash of lightning, or a thunderbolt. The Hebrew is “fire of God;” but it is probable that the phrase is

used in a sense similar to the expression, “cedars of God,” meaning lofty cedars; I or “mountains of God,” meaning very high mountains. The lightning is I probably intended; compare Numbers 16:35; see the note at Isaiah 29:6.From heaven - From the sky, or the air. So the word heaven is often used in the Scriptures; see the notes at Matthew 16:1.And hath burnt up the sheep - That lightning might destroy herds and men no one can doubt; though the fact of their being actually consumed or burned up may have been an exaggeration of the much affrighted messenger. - The narrative leads us to believe that these things were under the control of Satan, though by the permission of God; and his power over the lightnings and the winds Job 1:19 may serve to illustrate the declaration, that he is the “Prince of the power of the air,” in Ephesians 2:2.

Verse 17The Chaldeans - The Septuagint translates this, αι ιππεις hai hippeis ), “the horsemen.” Why they thus expressed it is unknown. It may be possible that the Chaldeans were supposed to be distinguished as horsemen, and were principally known as such in their predatory excursions. But it is impossible to account for all the changes made by the Septuagint in the text. Tho Syriac and the Chaldee render it correctly, “Chaldeans.” The Chaldeans (Hebrew כשדים kasdıym ) were the ancient inhabitants of Babylonia. According to Vitringa (Commentary in Isa. tom. i. p. 412, c. xiii. 19), Gesenius (Commentary zu Isaiah 23:13), and Rosenmailer (Bib. Geog. 1,2, p. 36ff), the Chaldees or Casdim were a warlike people who orignally inhabited the Carduchian mountains, north of Assyria, and the northern part of Mesopotamia. According to Xenophon (Cyrop. iii. 2,7) the Chaldees dwelt in the mountains adjacent to Armenia and they were found in the same region in the campaign of the younger Cyrus, and the retreat of the ten thousand Greeks. Xen. Anaba. iv. 3,4; v. 5,9; viii. 8,14.They were allied to the Hebrews, as appears from Genesis 22:22, where כשד kesed (whence “Kasdim”) the ancestor of the people is mentioned as a son of Nabor, and was consequently the nephew of Abraham. And further, Abraham himself emigrated to Canaan from Ur of the Chaldees אור כשדים 'ur kasdıym “Ur of the Kasdim”), Genesis 11:28; and in Ezekiel 1:3 “the land of the Chaldeans;” Jeremiah Jeremiah 5:15 calls them “an ancient nation;” see the notes at Isaiah 23:13. The Chaldeans were a fierce and warlike people, and when they were subdued by the Assyrians, a portion of them appear to have been placed in

Babylon to ward off the incursions of the neighboring Arabians. In time “they” gained the ascendency over their Assyrian masters, and grew into the mighty empire of Chaldea or Babylonia. A part of them, however, appear to have remained in their ancient country, and enjoyed under the Persians some degree of liberty. Gesenius supposes that the Kurds who have inhabited those regions, at least since the middle ages, are probably the descendants of that people. - A very vivid and graphic description of the Chaldeans is given by the prophet Habakkuk, which will serve to illustrate the passage before us, and show that they retained until his times the predatory and fierce character which they had in the days of Job; Job 1:6-11:For lo I raise up the Chaldeans,A bitter and hasty nation,Which marches far and wide in the earth.To possess the dwellings which are not theirs.They are terrible and dreadful,Their judgments proceed only from themselves.Swifter titan leopards are their horses,And fiercer than the evening wolves.Their horsemen prance proudly around;And their horsemen shall come from afar and fly,Like the eagle when he pounces on his prey.They all shall come for violence,In troops their glance is ever forward!They gather captives like the sand!And they scoff at kings,And princes are a scorn unto them.They deride every strong hold;They cast up d mounds of - earth and take it.This warlike people ultimately obtained the ascendency in the Assyrian empire. About the year 597 B.C. Nabopolassar, a viceroy in Babylon, made himself independent of Assyria, contracted an alliance with Cyaxares, king of Media, and with his aid subdued Nineveh, and the whole of Assyria. From that time the Babylonian empire rose, and the history of the Chaldeans becomes the history of Babylon. - “Rob. Calmet.” In the time of Job, however, they were a predatory

race that seem to have wandered far for the sake of plunder. They came from the North, or the East, as the Sabeans came from the South.Made out three bands - literally, “three heads.” That is, they divided tbemselves, for the sake of plunder, into three parties. Perhaps the three thousand camels of Job Job 1:3 occupied three places remote from each other, and the object of the speaker is to say that the whole were taken.And fell upon the camels - Margin, “And rushed.” The word is different from that which in Job 1:15 is rendered “fell.” The word used here פשט pashat means to spread out, to expand. It is spoken of hostile troops, 1 Chronicles 14:9 , 1 Chronicles 14:13 ; of locusts which spread over a country, Nahum 3:15; and of an army or company of marauders. Judges 9:33, Judges 9:44; 1 Samuel 27:8 . This is its sense here.

Verse 18Eating and drinking wine - ; the notes at Job 1:4, Job 1:13.

Verse 19There came a great wind - Such tornadoes are not less common in Oriental countries than in the United States. Indeed they abound more in regions near the equator than they do in those which are more remote; in hot countries than in those of higher latitude.From the wilderness - Margin, “From aside.” That is, from aside the wilderness. The word here rendered “from aside” in the margin ( mıdbar מדבר) means properly “from across,” and is so rendered by Dr. Good. The word abar‛ עבר means literally a region or country beyond, or on the other side, sc. of a river or a sea, which one must “pass;” Judges 11:18; Genesis 2:10-11; Deuteronomy 1:1, Deuteronomy 1:5. Then it means on the other side, or beyond; see the notes at Isaiah 18:1. Here it means that the tornado came sweeping across the desert. On the ample plains of Arabia it would have the opportunity of accumulating its desolating power, and would sweep everything before it. The Hebrew word here rendered “wilderness,” מדבר mıdbar does not express exactly what is denoted by our word. We mean by it usually, a region wholly uncultivated, covered with forests, and the habitation of wild beasts. The Hebrew word more properly denotes a “desert;” an uninhabited region, a sterile, sandy country, though sometimes adapted to pasture. In many places the word would be well translated by the phrases “open fields,” or “open plains;” compare Joel 2:22; Psalm 65:13;

Jeremiah 23:10; Isaiah 42:11; Genesis 14:6; Genesis 16:7; Exodus 3:1; Exodus 13:18; Deuteronomy 11:24; compare Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 35:1-2.And smote the four corners of the house - Came as a tornado usually does, or like a whirlwind. It seemed to come from all points of the compass, and prostrated everything before it.And it fell upon the young men - The word here rendered” young men” is the same which is rendered in Job 1:15, Job 1:17, servants הנערים hana‛arıym There can be no reasonable doubt, however, that the messenger by the word here refers to the children of Job. It is remarkable that his daughters are not particularly specified, but they may be included in the word used here נערים na‛arıym which may be the same in signification as our phrase “young people,” including both sexes. So it is rendered by Etchhorn: Es sturtzo tiber den jungen Leuten zusammen.

Verse 20Then Job arose - The phrase to arise, in the Scriptures is often used in the sense of beginning to do anything. It does not necessarily imply that the person had been previously sitting; see 2 Samuel 13:13 .And rent his mantle - The word here rendered “mantle” מעיל me‛ıyl means an upper or outer garment. The dress of Orientals consists principally of an under garment or tunic - not materially differing from the “shirt” with us - except that the sleeves are wider, and under this large and loose pantaloons. Niebuhr, Reisebescreib. 1. 157. Over these garments they often throw a full and flowing mantle or robe. This is made without sleeves; it reaches down to the ankles; and when they walk or exercise it is bound around the middle with a girdle or sash. When they labor it is usually laid aside. The robe here referred ire was worn sometimes by women, 2 Samuel 13:18 ; by men of birth and rank, and by kings, 1 Samuel 15:27 ; 1 Samuel 18:4 ; 1 Samuel 24:5 , 1 Samuel 24:11 ; by priests, 1 Samuel 28:14 , and especially by the high priest under the ephod, Exodus 28:31. See Braun de vest Sacerd. ii. 5. Schroeder de vest. muller.Hebrew p. 267; Hartmann Ilcbraerin, iii. p. 512, and Thesau. Antiq. Sacra. by Ugolin, Tom. i. 509, iii. 74, iv. 504, viii. 90,1000, xii. 788, xiii. 306; compare the notes at Matthew 5:40, and Niebuhr, as quoted above. The custom of rending the garment as an expression of grief prevailed not only among the Jews but also among the Greeks and Romans. Livy i. 13. Suetonius, in “Jul. Caes.” 33. It prevailed also among the Persians. Curtius, B. x. c. 5, section 17. See Christian

Boldich, in Thesau. Antiq. Sacra. Tom. xii. p. 145; also Tom. xiii. 551,552,560, xxx. 1105,1112. In proof also that the custom prevailed among the Pagan, see Diod. Sic. Lib. i. p. 3, c. 3, respecting the Egyptians; Lib. xvii. respecting the Persians; Quin. Curt. iii. 11; Herod. Lib. iii. in Thalia, Lib. viii. in Urania, where he speaks of the Persians. So Plutarch in his life of Antony, speaking of the deep grief of Cleopatra, says, περιερρηξατο τους πεπλους επ αυτω perierrecato tous piplous ep' auto Thus, Herodian, Lib. i.: και ρηξαμενη εσθητα kai recamene estheta So Statius in Glaucum:Tu mode fusus humi, lucem aversaris iniquam,Nunc torvus pariter vestes, et pectora rumpis.So Virgil:Tune pins Aeneas humeris abscindere vestem,Auxilioque vocare Deos, et tendere palmas.Aeneid v. 685.Demittunt mentes; it scissa veste Latinus,Conjugis attonitus fatis, urbisque ruina,Aeneid 12:609.So Juvenal, Sat. x.:ut primos edere planctusCassandra inciperet, scissaque Polyxena palla.Numerous other quotations from the Classical writers, as well as from the Jewish writings, may be seen in Ugolin‘s Sacerdotium Hebraicum, cap. vi. Thesau. Antiq. Sacrar. Tom. xiii. p. 550ff.And shaved his head - This was also a common mode of expressing great sorrow. Sometimes it was done by formally cutting off the hair of the head; sometimes by plucking it violently out by the roots, and sometimes also the beard was plucked out, or cut off. The idea seems to have been that mourners should divest themselves of that which was usually deemed most ornamental; compare Jeremiah 7:29; Isaiah 7:20. Lucian says that the Egyptians expressed their grief by cutting off their hair on the death of their god Apis, and the Syrians in the same manner at the death of Adonis. Olympiodorus remarks on this passage, that the people among whom long hair was regarded as an ornament, cut it off in times of mourning; but those who commonly wore short hair, suffered it on such occasions to grow long. See Rosenmuller, Morgenland, “in loc.” A full description of the customs of the Hebrews in times of mourning, and particularly of the

custom of plucking out the hair, may be seen in Martin Geier, de Hebraeorum Luctu, especially in chapter viii.Thesau. Antiq. Sacra. xxxiil. p. 147ff. The meaning here is that Job was filled with excessive grief, and that he expressed that grief in the manner that was common in his day. Nature demands that there should be “some” external expression of sorrow; and religion does not forbid it. He pays a tribute to the nature with which God has endowed him who gives an appropriate expression to sorrow; he wars against that nature who attempts to remove from his countenance, conversation, dress, and dwelling, everything that is indicative of the sorrows of his soul in a time of calamity. Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus; and religion is not designed to make the heart insensible or incapable of grief. Piety, like every kind of virtue, always increases the susceptibility of the soul to suffering. Philosophy and sin destroy sensibility; but religion deepens it. Philosophy does it on principle - for its great object is to render the heart dead to all sensibility; sin produces the same effect naturally. The drunkard, the licentious man, and the man of avarice, are incapable of being affected by the tender scenes of life. Guilt has paralyzed their feelings and rendered tthem dead. But religion allows people to feel, and then shows its power in sustaining the soul, and in imparting its consolations to the heart that is broken and sad. It comes to dry up the tears of the mourner, not to forbid those tears to flow; to pour the balm of consolation into the heart, not to teach the heart to be unfeeling.And fell down upon the ground - So Joshua in a time of great calamity prostrated himself upon the earth and worshipped, Joshua 7:6. - The Orientals were then in the habit, as they are now, of prostrating themselves on the ground as an act of homage. Job seems to have done this partly as an expression of grief, and partly as an act of devotion - solemnly bowing before God in the time of his great trial.And worshipped - Worshipped God. He resigned himself to his will. A pious man has nowhere else to go in trial; and he will desire to go nowhere else than to the God who has afflicted him.

Verse 21And said, Naked came I out - That is, destitute of property, for so the connection demands; compare 1 Timothy 6:7 ; “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” A similar expression also occurs in Pliny, “Hominem natura tanturn nudism.” Nat. Hist. proem. L. vii. Job

felt that he was stripped of all, and that he must leave the world as destitute as he entered it.My mother‘s womb - The earth - the universal mother. That he refers to the earth is apparent, because he speaks of returning there again. The Chaldee adds לבית קבורתא lebeyt qeburata' - “to the house of burial.” The earth is often called the mother of mankind; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 26; compare Psalm 139:15. Dr. Good remarks, that “the origin of all things from the earth introduced, at a very early period of the world, the superstitious worship of the earth, under the title of Dameter, or the “Mother-goddess,” a Chaldee term, probably common to Idumea at the time of the existence of Job himself. It is hence the Greeks derive their Δημητνρ Demeter (Demeter), or as they occasionally wrote it Γημητηρ Gemeter (Ge-meter), or Mother Earth, to whom they appropriated annually two religious festivals of extraordinary pomp and solemnity. Thus, Lucretius says,Linquitur, ut merito materhum nomen adeptaTerra sit, e terra quoniam sunt cuneta creata.v. 793.- “Whence justly earthClaims the dear name of mother, since aloneFlowed from herself whate‘er the sight enjoys.”For a full account of the views of the ancients in regard to the “marriage” ( ιερος γαμος gamos hieros )of the “heaven” and the “earth,” from which union all things were supposed to proceed, see Creuzer‘s Symbolik und Mythologie der alt. Volk. Erst. Theil, p. 26, fg.And naked - Stripped of all, I shall go to the common mother of the race. This is exceedingly beautiful language; and in the mouth of Job it was expressive of the most submissive piety. It is not the language of complaint; but was in him connected with the deep feeling that the loss of his property was to be traced to God, and that he had a right to do as he had done.The Lord gave - Hebrew יהוה yehovah He had nothing when he came into the world, and all that he had obtained had been by the good providence of God. As “he” gave it, he had a right to remove it. Such was the feeling of Job, and such is the true language of submission everywhere. He who has a proper view of what he possesses will feel that it is all to be traced to God, and that he has a right to remove it when he pleases.

And the Lord hath taken away - It is not by accident; it is not the result of haphazard; it is not to be traced to storms and winds and the bad passions of people. It is the result of intelligent design, and whoever has been the agent or instrument in it, it is to be referred to the overruling providence of God. Why did not Job vent his wrath on the Sabeans? Why did he not blame the Chaldeans? Why did he not curse the tempest and the storm? Why did he not blame his sons for exposing themselves? Why not suspect the malice of Satan? Why not suggest that the calamity was to be traced to bad fortune, to ill-luck, or or to an evil administration of human affairs? None of these things occurred to Job. He traced the removal of his property and his loss of children at once to God, and found consolation in the belief that an intelligent and holy Sovereign presided over his affairs, and that he had removed only what he gave.Blessed be the name of the Lord - That is, blessed be yahweh - the “name” of anyone in Hebrew being often used to denote the person himself. The Syriac, Arabic, and some manuscripts of the Septuagint here adds “forever.” - “Here,” says Schmid, “the contrast is observable between the object of Satan, which was to induce Job to renounce God, and the result of the temptation which was to lead Job to bless God.” Thus, far Satan had been foiled, and Job had sustained the shock of the calamity, and showed that he did not serve God on account of the benefits which be had received from him.

Verse 22In all this - In all his feelings and expressions on this occasion.Job sinned not - He expressed just the feelings and manifested just the submission which he ought to do.Nor charged God foolishly - Margin, “Attributed folly to God.” Vulgate, “Neither did he speak any foolish thing against God.” The Septuagint renders it, “and he did not impute (or give, εδωκεν edoken ) folly ( αφροσυνην aphrosunen ) (indiscretion, ‹Thompson‘) to God.” Good renders this, “nor vented a murmur against God;” and remarks that the literal rendering would be, “nor vented froth against God. Tindal renders it, “nor murmured foolishly against God.” The Hebrew word תפלה tıphlah is derived from the obsolete root תפל taphel “to spit out;” and hence, to be insipid, tasteless, not seasoned. The noun, therefore, means properly that which is spit out; then that which is insipid or tasteless; and then folly. Wit and wisdom are represented by Oriental writers as pungent and seasoned; compare the expression among the Greeks of “Attic salt,” meaning wit

or wisdom. The word “folly” in the Scriptures often means wickedness, for this is supreme folly. Here it has this sense, and means that Job did not say anything “wrong.” Satan was disappointed and had borne a false accusation before God. He did “not” charge God foolishly, and he did “not” curse him to his face.From this instructive narrative of the manner in which Job received afflictions, we may learn(1) That true piety will bear the removal of property and friends without murmuring. Religion is not based on such things, and their removal cannot shake it. It is founded deeper in the soul, and mere external changes cannot destroy it.(2) When we are afflicted, we should not vent our wrath on winds and waves; on the fraud and perfidy of our fellow-men; on embarrassments and changes in the commercial world; on the pestilence and the storm. Any or all of these may be employed as instruments in taking away our property or our friends, but we should trace the calamity ultimately to God. Storms and winds and waves, malignant spirits and our fellow-men, do no more than God permits. They are all restrained and kept within proper limits. They are not directed by chance, but they are under the control of an intelligent Being, and are the wise appointment of a holy God.(3) God has a right to remove our comforts. He gave them - not to be our permanent inheritance, but to be withdrawn when he pleases. It is a proof of goodness that we have been permitted to tread his earth so long - though we should be allowed to walk it no more; to breathe his air so long - though we should be permitted to inhale it no more; to look upon his sun and moon and stars so long - though we should be permitted to walk by their light no more; to enjoy the society of the friends whom he has given us so long - though we should enjoy that society no longer. A temporary gift may be removed at the pleasure of the giver, and we hold all our comforts at the mere good pleasure of God.(4) We see the nature of true resignation. It is not because we can always see the “reason” why we are afflicted; it consists in bowing to the will of a holy and intelligent God, and in the feeling that he has a “right” to remove what he has given us. It is his; and may be taken away when he pleases. It may be, and should be yielded, without a complaint - and to do this “because” God wills it, is true resignation.(5) We see the true source of “comfort” in trials. It is not in the belief that things are regulated by chance and hap-hazard; or even that they are controlled by physical laws. We may have the clearest philosophical view of the mode in which

tempests sweep away property, or the pestilence our friends; we may understand the laws by which all this is done, but this affords no consolation. It is only when we perceive an “intelligent Being” presiding over these events, and see that they are the result of plan and intention on his part, that we can find comfort in trial. What satisfaction is it for me to understand the law by which fire burns when my property is swept away; or to know “how” disease acts on the human frame when my child dies; or how the plague produces its effects on the body when friend after friend is laid in the grave? This is “philosophy;” and this is the consolation which this world furnishes. I want some higher consolation than that which results from the knowledge of unconscious laws. I want to have the assurance that it is the result of intelligent design, and that this design is connected with a benevolent end - and that I find only in religion.(6) We see the “power” of religion in sustaining in the time of trial. How calm and submissive was this holy man! How peaceful and resigned! Nothing else but piety could have done this. Philosophy blunts the feelings, paralyses the sensibilities, and chills the soul; but it does not give consolation. It is only confidence in God; a feeling that he is right; and a profound and holy acquiescence in his will, that can produce support in trials like these. This we may have as well so Job; and this is indispensable in a world so full of calamity and sorrow as this is.

02 Chapter 2 Verse 1Again there was a day … - See the notes at Job 1:6. These seasons are represented as periodical, when the angels came, as it were, to make report to God of what they had observed and done. The Chaldee renders this, “And there was a day of the great judgment ( יום דינא רבא yom dıyna' raba' ), a day of the remission of sins ( סרחניא יום שבוק ) and there came bands (כתי ) of angels.”To present himself before the Lord - This does not occur in the former statement in Job 1:6. It here means that he came before the Lord after he had had permission to afflict; Job. The Chaldee renders it “that he might stand in judgment דין dıyn before the Lord.”

Verse 2And the Lord said unto Satan … - See the notes at Job 1:7.

Verse 3Hast thou considered - Notes, Job 1:8.That there is none like him in the earth - The same addition is made here by the Septuagint which occurs in Job 1:1; see the notes at that verse.And still he holdeth fast his integrity - Notwithstanding all the efforts made to show that his piety was the result of mere selfishness. The word “integrity” here tummah means “perfection;” another form of the word which is rendered תמה“perfect” in Job 1:1; see the notes at that verse.Although thou movedst me - The word rendered “movedst” סות suth means to incite, to impel, to urge, to irritate against anyone; Joshua 15:18; Judges 1:14; 2 Chronicles 18:2 ; 1 Samuel 26:19 ; Jeremiah 43:3. The Septuagint renders this in a special manner, “And thou hast ordered ( ειπας eipas ) his property to be destroyed in vain” ( διακενης diakenes ), that is, without accomplishing the purpose intended.To destroy him - The word used here (from ( ‛bela בלע means properly to swallow, to devour, with the idea of eagerness or greediness. It is then used in the sense of to consume, or destroy; compare Job 20:18; Proverbs 1:12; Numbers 16:30; Psalm 69:15. In the margin it is rendered “swallow him up.”Without cause - Without any sufficient reason. The cause assigned by Satan Job 1:9-11 was, that the piety of Job was selfish, and that if God should remove his possessions, he would show that he had no true religion. God says now that it was demonstrated that there was no reason for having made the trial. The result had shown that the charge was unfounded, and that his piety still remained, though he was stripped of all that he had. This passage may remind us of the speech of Neptune in favor of Aeneas, Iliad v. 297:And can ye see this righteous chief atoneWith guiltless blood for vices not his own?To all the gods his constant vows were paid;Sure though he wars for Troy he claims our aid.Fate wills not this - Pope

Verse 4Skin for skin - This is a proverbial expression, whose origin is unknown, nor is its meaning as “a proverb” entirely clear. The general sense of the passage here is plain, for it is immediately explained that a man would give everything which he had to save his life; and the idea here is, that if Job was so afflicted in his body

that he was likely to die, he would give up all his religion in order to purchase life. His religion, which had berne the comparatively trifling test before applied to it, would not bear the severer trial if his life was endangered. In regard to the proverb itself, a great variety of explanations has been given. The ancient versions throw no light on it. The Vulgate renders it, “Pellem pro pelle.” The Septuagint Δερμα υπερ δερυατος derma huper dermatos - skin for, or instead of, skin. The Chaldee renders it, “member for member,” אברא אמטול אברא - and the author of that paraphrase seems to have supposed that it means that a man would give the members of his body or his limbs to preserve his life. Parkhurst renders it, “skin after skin,” meaning, as he explains it, that a man may bear to part with all that he has, and even to have his skin, as it were, stripped off again and again, provided only that his life is safe. Noyes supposes that it means that any man will give the skin or life of another, whether animal or man, to save his own; and that: Job gave up all, without complaint, from the selfish fear of exposing his own life to danger. Dr. Good remarks on the passage, that the skins or spoils of beasts, in the rude and early ages of man, were the most valuable property he could acquire, and that for which he most frequently combated. Thus, Lucretius says,Tam igitur “pelles,” nunc aurum et purpura, curisExercent hominum vitam, belloque fatigant.v. 1422.“Then man for “skins” contended; purple now,And gold, forever plunge him into war.”In various parts of the book of Job, however, Dr. Good remarks, the word skin imports the “person” of a man as well as his “property,” the whole living body which it envelopes, as in Job 18:13; Job 19:26. “It is,” says he, “upon the double meaning of the same term, and the play which is here given to it, by employing the term first in one sense and then in the other, that the gist of the proverb, as of a thousand others similarly constructed, depends. ‹Skin for skin‘ is in this view, in plain English, ‹property for person,‘ or ‹the skin forming property for the skin forming person.‘” See a somewhat similar view presented by Callaway, in Bush‘s Illustrations, “in loco.” The editor of the Pictorial Bible coincides mainly with this view, and supposes that the reference is to the time when trade was conducted by barter, and when the skins of animals, being a most frequent and valuable commodity, were used to represent property.Tributes, ransoms, etc., he observes, were paid in skins. According to this, it

means that a man would give “skin upon skin;” that is, would pile one piece of property upon another, and give “all” that he had, in order to save his life. It refers to the necessity of submitting to one great evil rather than incur a greater, answering to the Turkish proverb, “We must give our beards to save our heads.” According to Gesenius, it means “life for life.” Drusius explains it as meaning, that he would give the skin of others, as of his sons, to save his own; that is, that he was unmoved so long as his own skin or life was safe. The same view is given by Ephrem the Syrian. “Skin for skin; the skin not only of flocks, but even of his sons will he give, in order to save his own.” This view also is adopted by Urnbreit. That is, his religion was supremely selfish. The loss of property and even of children he could bear, provided his person was untouched.His own health, and life; his own skin and body were dearer to him than anything else. Other people would have been afflicted by the loss of children and property. But Job was willing to part with any or all of these, provided he himself was safe. Rosenmuller supposes that the word skin here is used for the whole body; and says that the sense is, that he would give the body of another for his own, as in Exodus 21:23. “The meaning of this proverbial formula,” says he, “is, that any one would redeem his own safety by the skin of others; that is, not only by the skins or lives of oxen, camels, servants, but even of his own children.” Schultens supposes it means that a man would submit to any sufferings in order to save his life; that he would be willing to be flayed alive; to be repeatedly excoriated; to have, so to speak. one skin stripped off after another, if he might save his own life.According to this, the idea is, that the loss of life was the great calamity to be feared, and that a man would give “any” thing in order to save it. Umbreit says, “there is nothing so valuable to a man that he will not exchange it - one thing for another; one outward good for another, ‹skin for skin.‘ But life, the inward good, is to him of no value that can be estimated. That he will give for nothing; and much more, he will offer everything for that.” Another solution is offered in the Biblische Untersuchungen ii. Th. s. 88. “Before the use of gold, traffic was conducted chiefly by barter. Men exchanged what was valuable to themselves for what others had which they wanted. Those who hunted wild beasts would bring their skins to market, and would exchange them for bows and arrows. Since these traffickers were exposed to the danger of being robbed, they often took with them those who were armed, who agreed to defend them on condition that they should have a part of the skins which they took, and in this way they purchased their

property and life.”That is, they gave the skins of animals for the safety of their own; all that they had they would surrender, in order that their lives might be saved. See Rosenmuller‘s Morgenland, “in loc.” None of these solutions appear to me perfectly satisfactory, and the proverb is involved in perplexity still. It seems to refer to some kind of barter or exchange, and to mean that a man would give up one thing for another; or one piece of property of less value in order to save a greater; and that in like manner he would be willing to surrender “everything,” in order that his life, the most valuable object, might be preserved. But the exact meaning of the proverb, I suspect, has not yet been perceived.Yea, all that a man hath - This is evidently designed to express the same thing as the proverb, “skin for skin,” or to furnish an illustration of that. The meaning is plain. A man is willing to surrender all that he has, in order to preserve his life. He will part with property and friends, in order that he may be kept alive. if a man therefore is to be reached in the most tender and vital part; if any thing is to be done that shall truly reveal his character, his life must be put in danger, and his true character will then be revealed. The object of Satan is to say, that a test had not been applied to Job of sufficient severity to show what he really was. What he had lost was a mere trifle compared with what would be if he was subjected to severe bodily sufferings, so that his life would be in peril. it is to be remembered that these are the words of Satan, and that they are not necessarily true.Inspiration is concerned only in securing “the exact record” of what is said, not in affirming that all that is said is true. We shall have frequent occasion to illustrate this sentiment in other portions of the book. In regard to the sentiment here expressed, however, it is in general true. Men will surrender their property, their houses, and lands, and gold, to save their lives. Many, too, would see their friends perish, in order that they might be saved. It is not universally true, however. It is possible to conceive that a man might so love his property as to submit to any torture, even endangering life, rather than surrender it. Many, too, if endangered by shipwreck, would give up a plank in order to save their wives or children, at the risk of their own lives. Many will give their lives rather than surrender their liberty; and many would die rather than abandon their principles. Such were the noble Christian martyrs; and such a man was Job. Satan urged that if his life were made wretched, he would abandon his integrity, and show that his professed piety was selfish, and his religion false and hollow. The Syriac and Arabic add, “that he may be safe.”

Verse 5But put forth thine hand now - Satan felt that he had no power to afflict Job without permission. Malignant as he was, he knew that God only could subject the holy man to this trial - another proof that Satan is under the control of the Almighty, and acts only as he is “permitted” to act in tempting and trying the good.And touch his bone - See the note at Job 1:11. Afflict his body so as to endanger his life. The words “bone” and “flesh” denote the whole body. The idea was, that the whole body should be subjected to severe pain.And he will curse thee to thy face - Notes at Job 1:11.

Verse 6Behold, he is in thine hand - He is at thy disposal; see Job 1:12, Margin.But save his life - Margin, “only.” This was to be the only limitation. It would seem that he had the power to make any selection of disease, and to afflict him in any manner, provided it did not terminate fatally. The keen sorrows which Job afterward endured showed the malignancy of the tempter; evinced his ingenuity in inflicting pain, and his knowledge of what thc human frame could be made to bear.

Verse 7So went Satan forth - Job 1:12.And smote Job with sore boils - The English word boil denotes the well-known turnout upon the flesh, accompanied with severe inflammation; a sore angry swelling. “Webster.” The Hebrew word, however, is in the singular number שחין shechıyn and should have been so rendered in our translation. Dr. Good renders it “a burning ulceration.” The Vulgate translates it, “ulcere pessimo.” The Septuagint, ελκει πονηρω helkei ponero - “with a foul ulcer.” The Hebrew word shechıyn means a burning sore; an inflamed ulcer, a bile. “Gesenius.” It is שחיןderived from שכן shakan an obsolete root, retained in Arabic, and meaning to be hot or inflamed. It is translated “bile” or “boil,” in Exodus 9:9-11; Leviticus 13:18; 2 Kings 20:7 ;: Isaiah 28:21, (see the notes on that place), Leviticus 13:19-20; Job 2:7; and “botch,” Deuteronomy 28:27, Deuteronomy 28:35. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures. In Deuteronomy 28:27, it means “the botch of Egypt,” some species of leprosy, undoubtedly, which prevailed there.

In regard to the disease of Job, we may learn some of its characteristics, not only from the usual meaning of the word, but from the circumstances mentioned in the book itself. It was such that he took a potsherd to scrape himself with, Job 2:8; such as to make his nights restless, and full of tossings to and fro and to clothe his flesh with clods of dust, and with worms, and to break his flesh, or to constitute a running sore or ulcer, Job 7:4-5; such as to make him bite his flesh for pain, Job 13:14, and to make him like a rotten thing, or a garment that is moth eaten, Job 13:28; such that his face was foul with weeping, Job 16:16, and such as to fill him with wrinkles, and to make his flesh lean, Job 16:8; such as to make his breath corrupt, Job 17:1, and his bones cleave to his skin, Job 19:20, Job 19:26; such as to pierce his bones with pain in the night, Job 30:17, and to make his skin black, and to burn up his bones with heat, Job 30:30.It has been commonly supposed that the disease of Job was a species of black leprosy commonly called “elephantiasis,” which prevails much in Egypt. This disease received its name from ελεφας elefas “an elephant,” from the swelling produced by it, causing a resemblance to that animal in the limbs; or because it rendered the skin like that of the elephant, scabtons and dark colored. It is called by the Arabs judham (Dr. Good), and is said to produce in the countenance a grim, distorted, and “lion-like” set of features, and hence has been called by some “Leontiasis.” It is known as the black leprosy, to distinguish it from a more common disorder called “white leprosy” - an affection which the Greeks call “Leuce,” or “whiteness.” The disease of Job seems to have been a universal ulcer; producing an eruption over his entire person, and attended with violent pain, and constant restlessness. A universal bile or groups of biles ever the body would accord with the account of the disease in the various parts of the book. In the elephantiasis the skin is covered with incrustations like those of an elephant. It is a chronic and contagious disease, marked by a thickening of the legs, with a loss of hair and feeling, a swelling of the face, and a hoarse nasal voice. It affects the whole body; the bones as well as the skin are covered with spots and tumors, at first red, but afterward black. “Coxe, Ency. Webster.” It should be added that the leprosy in all its forms was regarded as contagious, and of course involved the necessity of a separation from society; and all the circumstances attending this calamity were such as deeply to humble a man of the former rank and dignity of Job.

Verse 8

And he took him a potsherd - The word used here charash means a חרש fragment of a broken vessel; see the notes at Isaiah 45:9. The Septuagint renders it οστρακον ostrakon - “a shell.” One object of taking this was to remove from his body the filth accumulated by the universal ulcer, compare Job 7:4-5; and another design probably was, to “indicate” the greatness of his calamity and sorrow. The ancients were accustomed to show their grief by significant external actions (compare the notes at Job 1:20), and nothing could more strongly denote the greatness of the calamity, than for a man of wealth, honor, and distinction, to sit down in the ashes, to take a piece of broken earthen-ware, and begin to scrape his body covered over with undressed and most painful sores. It does not appear that anything was done to heal him, or any kindness shown in taking care of his disease. It would seem that he was at once separated from his home, as a man whom none would venture to approach, and was doomed to endure his suffering without sympathy from others.To scrape himself withal - The word used here garad has the sense of גרד grating, scraping, sawing; or to scrape or rasp with an edged tool. The same word identically, as to letters, is used at present among the Arabs; meaning to rasp or scrape with any kind of tool. The idea here seems to be, that Job took the pieces of broken pottery that he found among the ashes to scrape himself with.And he sat down among the ashes - On the expressions of grief among the ancients, see the notes at Job 1:20. The general ideas of mourning among the nations of antiquity seem to have been, to strip off all their ornaments; to put on the coarsest apparel, and to place themselves in the most humiliating positions. To sit on the ground (see the note at Isaiah 3:26), or on a heap of ashes, or a pile of cinders, was a common mode of expressing sorrow; see the note at Isaiah 58:5. To wear sackcloth to shave their heads and their beards and to abstain from pleasant food and from all cheerful society, and to utter loud and long exclamations or shrieks, was also a common mode of indicating grief. The Vulgate renders this “sedates in sterquilinio,” “sitting on a dunghill.” The Septuagint, “and he took a shell to scrape off the ichor ( ιχωρα ichora ) the “sanies,” or filth produced by a running ulcer, and sat upon the ashes “out of the city,”” implying that his grief was so excessive that he left the city and his friends, and went out to weep alone.

Verse 9

Then said his wife unto him - Some remarkable additions are made by the ancient versions to this passage. The Chaldee renders it, “and “Dinah” דינה) dıynah ), his wife, said to him.” The author of that paraphrase seems to have supposed that Job lived in the time of Jacob, and had married his daughter Dinah; Genesis 30:21. Drusius says, that this was the opinion of the Hebrews, and quotes a declaration from the Gemara to this effect: “Job lived in the days of Jacob, and was born when the children of Israel went down into Egypt; and when they departed thence he died. He lived therefore 210 years, as long as they were into Egypt.” This is mere tradition, but it shows the ancient impression as to the time when Job lived. The Septuagint has introduced a remarkable passage here, of which the following is a translation. “After much time had elapsed, his wife said unto him, How long wilt thou persevere, saying, Behold, I will wait a little longer, cherishing the trope of my recovery? Behold, the memorial of thee has disappeared from the earth - those sons and daughters, the pangs and sorrows of my womb, for whom I toiled laboriously in vain. Even thou sittest among loathsome worms, passing the night in the open air, whilst I, a wanderer and a drudge, from place to place, and from house to house, watch the sun until his going down, that I may rest from the toils and sorrows that now oppress me. But speak some word toward the Lord ( τι ρημα εις κυριον ti rema eis kurion ) and die.”Whence this addition had its origin, it is impossible now to say. Dr. Good says it is found in Theodotion, in the Syriac, and the Arabic (in this he errs, for it is not in the Syriac and Arabic in Waltoh‘s Polyglott), and in the Latin of Ambrose. Dathe suggests that it was probably added by some person who thought it incredible that an angry woman could be content with saying so “little” as is ascribed in the Hebrew to the wife of Job. It may have been originally written by some one in the margin of his Bible by way of paraphrase, and the transcriber, seeing it there, may have supposed it was omitted accidentally from the text, and so inserted it in the place where it now stands. It is one of the many instances, at all events, which show that implicit confidence is not to be placed in the Septuagint. There is not the slightest evidence that this was ever in the Hebrew text. It is not wholly unnatural, and as an exercise of the fancy is not without ingenuity and plausibility, and yet the simple but abrupt statement in the Hebrew seems best to accord with nature. The evident distress of the wife of Job, according to the whole narrative, is not so much that she was subjected to trials, and that she was compelled to wander about without a home, as that Job should be so patient, and

that he did not yield to the temptation.Dost thou still retain thine integrity? - Notes Job 2:3. The question implies that, in her view, he ought not to be expected to mantles, patience and resignation in these circumstances. He had endured evils which showed that confidence ought not to be reposed in a God who would thus inflict them. This is all that we know of the wife of Job. Whether this was her general character, or whether “she” yielded to the temptation of Satan and cursed God, and thus heightened the sorrows of Job by her unexpected impropriety of conduct, is unknown. It is not conclusive evidence that her general character was bad; and it may be that the strength of her usual virtue and piety was overcome by accumulated calamities. She expressed, however, the feelings of corrupt human nature everywhere when sorely afflicted. The suggestion “will” cross the mind, often with almost irresistible force, that a God who thus afflicts his creatures is not worthy of confidence; and many a time a child of God is “tempted” to give vent to feelings of rebellion and complaining like this, and to renounce all his religion.Curse God - See the notes at Job 1:11. The Hebrew word is the same. Dr. Good renders it, “And yet dost thou hold fast thine integrity, blessing God and dying?” Noyes translates it, “Renounce God, and die,” Rosenmuller and Umbreit, “Bid farewell to God, and die.” Castellio renders it, “Give thanks to God and die.” The response of Job, however Job 2:10, shows that he understood her as exciting him to reject, renounce, or curse God. The sense is, that she regarded him as unworthy of confidence, and submission as unreasonable, and she wished Job to express this and be relieved from his misery. Roberts supposes that this was a pagan sentiment, and says that nothing is more common than for the pagan, under certain circumstances, to curse their gods. “That the man who has made expensive offerings to his deity, in hope of gaining some great blessing, and who has been disappointed, will pour out all his imprecations on the god whose good offices have (as he believes) been prevented by some superior deity. A man in reduced circumstances says, ‹Yes, yes, my god has lost his eyes; they are put out; he cannot look after my affairs.‘ ‹Yes, ‹ said an extremely rich devotee of the supreme god Siva, after he had lost his property, ‹Shall I serve him any more? What, make offerings to him! No, no. He is the lowest of all gods? ‹“And die - Probably she regarded God as a stern and severe Being, and supposed that by indulging in blasphemy Job would provoke him to cut him off at once. She did not expect him to lay wicked hands on himself. She expected that

God would at once interpose and destroy him. The sense is, that nothing but death was to be expected, and the sooner he provoked God to cut him off from the land of the living, the better.

Verse 10As one of the foolish women speaketh - The word here rendered “foolish” נבל nabal from nabel means נבל properly stupid or foolish, and then wicked, abandoned, impious - the idea of “sin” and “folly” being closely connected in the Scriptures, or sin being regarded as supreme folly; 1 Samuel 25:25 ; 2 Samuel 3:33; Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:2. The Arabs still use the word with the same compass of signification. “Gesenius.” The word is used here in the sense of “wicked;” and the idea is, that the sentiment which she uttered was impious, or was such as were on the lips of the wicked. Sanctius supposes that there is a reference here to Idumean females, who, like other women, reproached and cast away their gods, if they did not obtain what they asked when they prayed to them. Homer represents Achilles and Menelaus as reproaching the gods. Iliad i. 353, iii. 365. See Rosenmuller, Morgenland, “in loc.”What shall we receive good at the hand of God - Having received such abundant tokens of kindness from him, it was unreasonable to complain when they were taken away, and when he sent calamity in their stead.And shall we not receive evil? - Shall we not expect it? Shall we not be willing to bear it when it comes? Shall we not have sufficient confidence in him to believe that his dealings are ordered in goodness and equity? Shall we at once lose all our confidence in our great Benefactor the moment he takes away our comforts, and visits us with pain? This is the true expression of piety. It submits to all the arrangements of God without a complaint. It receives blessings with gratitude; it is resigned when calamities are sent in their place. It esteems it as a mere favor to be permitted to breathe the air which God has made, to look upon the light of his sun, to tread upon his earth, to inhale the fragrance of his flowers, and to enjoy the society of the friends whom he gives; and when he takes one or all away, it feels that he has taken only what belongs to him, and withdraws a privilege to which we had no claim. In addition to that, true piety feels that all claim to any blessing, if it had ever existed, has been forfeited by sin. What right has a sinner to complain when God withdraws his favor, and subjects him to suffering? What claim has he on God, that should make it wrong for Him to visit him with calamity?

Wherefore doth a living man complain,A man for the punishment of his sins?Lamentations 3:39.In all this did not Job sin with his lips - See the notes at Job 1:22. This remark is made here perhaps in contrast with what occurred afterward. He subsequently did give utterance to improper sentiments, and was rebuked accordingly, but thus far what he had expressed was in accordance with truth, and with the feelings of most elevated piety.

Verse 11Now when Job‘s three friends heard - It would seem from this that these men were his particular friends.They came every one from his own place - His residence. This was the result of agreement or appointment thus to meet together.Eliphaz the Temanite - This was the most prominent of his friends. In the ensuing discussion he regularly takes the lead, advances the most important and impressive considerations, and is followed and sustained by the others. The Septuagint renders this Ελιφαζ ο Θαιμαινων βασιλευς Elifaz ho Thaimainon basileus - Eliphaz, the king of the Themanites. The Hebrew does not intimate that he held any office or rank. The word rendered “Temanite” תימני teymanıy is a patronymic from תמן teman meaning properly “at the right hand,” and then “the South.” The Hebrew geographers are always represented as looking to the East, and not toward the North, as we do; and hence, with them, the right hand denotes the South. Teman or Theman was a son of Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau; see Genesis 36:15, where he is spoken of as “duke” or prince אלוף 'aluph a head of a family or tribe, a chieftain.He is supposed to have lived on the east of Idumea. Eusebius places Thaeman in Arabia Petrara, five miles from Petra (see the notes at Isaiah 16:1), and says that there was a Roman garrison there. The Temanites were cclebrated for wisdom. “Is wisdom no more in Teman?” Jeremiah 49:7. The country was distinguished also for producing men of strength: “And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed;” Obadiah 1:9. That this country was a part of Idumea is apparent, not only from the fact that Teman was a descendant of Esau, who settled there, but from several places in the Scriptures. Thus, in Ezekiel 25:13, it is said, “I will also stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and I will make it desolate from Toman, and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword.” In Amos 1:12, Teman is

mentioned as in the vicinity of Bozrah, at one time the capital of Idumea: “But I will send a fire upon Teman, which shall devour the palaces of Bozrah;” see the notes at Isaiah 21:14. The inhabitants of this country were distinguished in early times for wisdom, and particularly for that kind of wisdom which is expressed in close observation of men and manners, and the course of events, and which was expressed in proverbs. Thus, they are mentioned in the book of Baruch, 3:23: “The merchants of Meran and of Theman, the authors of fables, and searchers out of understanding,” οι μυθολογοι και οι εκζητηται της συνεσεως hoi muthologoi kai hoi ekzetetai tes suneseos And Bildad the Shuhite - The second speaker uniformly in the following argument. The Septuagint renders this, “Bildad the sovereign of the Saucheans,” Σαυχεων τυραννος Saucheon turannos Shuah שוח shuach (meaning a pit) was the name of a son of Abraham, by Keturah, and also of an Arabian tribe, descended from him, Genesis 25:2. “The country of the Shuhites,” says Gesenius, “was not improbably the same with the Σακκαια Sakkaia of Ptolemy, v. 15, eastward of Batanea.” But the exact situation of the Shubites is unknown. It is difficult to determine the geography of the tribes of Arabia, as many of them are migratory and unsettled. It would seem that Bildad did not reside very far from Eliphaz, for they made an “agreement” to go and visit Job.And Zophar the Naamathite - An inhabitant of Naamah, whose situation is unknown. The Septuagint renders this, “Zophar, king of the Minaians - Μιναιων βασιλευς Minaion basileus A place by the name of Naamah is mentioned in Joshua 15:41, as in the limits of the tribe of Judah. But this was a considerable distance from the residence of Job, and it is not probable that Zophar was far from that region. Conjecture is useless as to the place where he lived. The Editor of the Pictorial Bible, however, supposes that Zophar was from the town in Judah mentioned in Joshua 15:41. He observes that this town is “mentioned in a list of the uttermost cities of Judah‘s lot, ‹toward the coast of Edom southward; ‹ it is further among that portion of those towns that lay ‹in the valley‘ Joshua 15:33, wbich valley is the same that contained Joktheel Joshua 15:38, which is supposed to have been Petra. Naamah was probably, therefore, in or near the Ghor or valley which extends from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba. - These considerations,” he adds, “seem to establish the conclusion that the scene of this book is laid in the land of Edom.” In the first part of this verse, a remarkable addition occurs in the Chaldee paraphrase. - It is as follows: “And the three friends of Job heard of all the evil which had come upon him, and when they saw

the trees of his gardens (Chaldean, “Paradise” פרדסיהון ) that they were dried up, and the bread of his support that it was turned into living flesh ( אתהפך לבסרא

חיא ולחם סעודתחון ), and the wine of his drink turned into blood ( משתיחון אתהפך לדמא וחמר ).”

Here is evidently the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” the change of bread into flesh, and of wine into blood, and bears the marks of having been interpolated by some friend of the papacy. But when or by whom it was done is unknown. It is a most stupid forgery. The evident intention of it was to sustain the doctrine of transubstantiation, by the plea that it was found far back in the times of Job, and that it could not be regarded, therefore, as an absurdity. To what extent it has ever been used by the advocates of that doctrine, I have no means of ascertaining. Its interpolation here is a pretty sure proof of the conviction of the author of it that the doctrine is not found in any fair interpretation of the Bible.For they had made an appointment together - They had agreed to go together, and they evidently set out on the journey together. The Chaldee - or someone who has interpolated a passage in the Chaldee - has introduced a circumstance in regard to the design of their coming, which savors also of the Papacy. It is as follows: “They came each one from his place, and for the merit of this they were freed from the place destined to them in Gehenna,” a passage evidently intended to defend the doctrine of “purgatory,” by the authority of the ancient Chaldee Paraphrase.To come to mourn with him, and to comfort him - To show the appropriate sympathy of friends in a time of special calamity. They did not come with an intention to reproach him, or to charge him with being a hypocrite.

Verse 12And when they lifted up their eyes afar off - “When they saw him at the distance at which they could formerly recognize him without difficulty, disease had so altered his appearance that at first sight they knew him not” - Noyes.They lifted up their voice - This is a common expression in the Scriptures, to denote grief; Genesis 27:38; Genesis 29:11; Judges 2:4; Rth 1:9 ; 1 Samuel 24:16, “et soepe al.” We learn to suppress the expressions of grief. The ancients gave vent to their sorrows aloud. - They even hired persons to aid them in their lamentations; and it became a professional business of women to devote themselves to the office of making an outcry on occasions of mourning. The same thing prevails in the East at present. Friends sit around the grave of the

dead, or go there at different times, and give a long and doleful shriek or howl, as expressive of their grief.And they rent every one his mantle - See the notes at Job 1:20.And sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven - Another expression of sorrow; compare Lamentations 2:10; Nehemiah 9:1; 1 Samuel 4:12 ; Joshua 7:6; Ezekiel 27:30. Thc indications of grief here referred to, were such as were common in ancient times. They resemble, in a remarkable manner, the mode in which Achilles gave utterance to his sorrow, when informed of the death of Patroclus. Iliad xviii. 21-27.A sudden horror shot through all the chief,And wrapp‘d his senses in the cloud of grief;Cast on the ground, with furious hands he spreadThe scorching ashes o‘er his graceful head,His purple garments, and his golden hairs,Those he deforms with dust, and these he tears:On the hard soil his groaning breast he threw,And roll‘d and grovell‘d as to earth he grew.PopeThus far the feelings of the three friends were entirely kind, and all that they did was expressive of sympathy for the sufferer.

Verse 13So they sat down with him upon the ground; - see Job 1:20, note; Job 2:8, note; compare Ezra 9:3, “I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head, and my beard, and sat down astonished.”Seven days and seven nights - Seven days was the usual time of mourning among the Orientals. Thus, they made public lamentation for Jacob seven days, Genesis 50:10. Thus, on the death of Saul, they fasted seven days, 1 Samuel 31:13. So the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus says,” Seven days do men mourn for him that is dead;” Ecclesiastes 22:12. It cannot be supposed that they remained in the same place and posture for seven days and nights, but that they mourned with him during that time in the usual way. An instance of grief remarkably similar to this, continuing through a period of six days, is ascribed by Euripides to Orestes:Εντευθεν αγρια ξυντακεις νοσω νοσειΤλημων Ορεστης; ο δε πεσων εν δεμνιοις

Κειται.Εκτου δε δη τοδ ημαρ, κ. τ. λ. Enteuthen agriacuntakeis noso nosei Tlemon Orestes ho de peson en demniois Keitai Hekton de de tod emar etc “‹Tis hence Orestes, agonized with griefsAnd sore disease, lies on his restless bedDelirious.Now six morns have winged their flight,Since by his hands his parent massacredBurnt on the pile in expiatory flames.Stubborn the while he keeps a rigid fast,Nor bathes, nor dresses; but beneath his robesHe skulks, and if he steals a pause from rage,‹Tis but to feel his weight of wo and weep.”And none spake a word to him - - That is, on the subject of his grief. They came to condole with him, but they had now nothing to say. They saw that his affliction was much greater than they had anticipated.For they saw that his grief was very great - This is given as a reason why they were silent. But “how” this produced silence, or why his great grief was a cause of their silence, is not intimated. Perhaps one or all of the following considerations may have led to it.(1) They were amazed at the extent of his sufferings. Amazement is often expressed by silence. We look upon that which is out of the usual course of events without being able to express anything. We are “struck dumb” with wonder.(2) The effect of great calamity is often to prevent utterance. Nothing is more natural or common than profound silence when we go to the house of mourning. “It is the lesser cares only that speak; the greater ones find not language.” Curae leves loquuntur, ingentes stupent.(3) They might not have known what to say. They had come to sympathize with him, and to offer consolation. But their anticipated topics of consolation may have been seen to be inappropriate. The calamity was greater than they had before witnessed. The loss of property and children; the deep humiliation of a man who had been one of the most distinguished of the land; the severity of his bodily sufferings, and his changed and haggard appearance, constituted so great a calamity, that the usual topics of conversation did not meet the case. What “they”

had to say, was the result of careful observation on the usual course or events, and it is by no means improbable that they had never before witnessed sorrows so keen, and that they now saw that their maxims would by no means furnish consolation for “such” a case.(4) They seem to have been very early thrown into doubt in regard to the real character of Job. They had regarded him as a pious man, and had come to him under that impression. But his great afflictions seem soon to have shaken their confidence in his piety, and to have led them to ask themselves whether so great a sufferer “could” be the friend of God. Their subsequent reasonings show that it was with them a settled opinion that the righteous would be prospered, and that very great calamities were proof of great criminality in the sight of God. It was not inconsistent with this belief to suppose that the righteous might be slightly afflicted, but when they saw “such” sorrows, they supposed they were altogether beyond what God could send upon his friends; and with this doubt on their minds, and this change in their views, they knew not what to say. How “could” they console him when it was their settled belief that great sufferings were proof of great guilt? They could say nothing which would not seem to be a departure from this, unless they assumed that he had been a hypocrite, and should administer reproof and rebuke for his sins.(5) In this state of things, to administer “rebuke” would seem to be cruel. It would aggravate the sorrows which already were more than he could bear. They did, therefore, what the friends of the afflicted are often compelled to do in regard to specific sufferings; they kept silence. As they could not comfort him, they would not aggravate his grief. All they could have said would probably have been unmeaning generalities which would not meet his case, or would have been sententious maxims which would imply that he was a sinner and a hypocrite; and they were therefore dumb, until the bitter complaint of Job himself Job 3 gave them an opportunity to state the train of thought which had passed through their minds during this protracted silence. How often do similar cases occur now - cases where consolation seems almost impossible, and where any truths which might be urged, except the most abstract and unmeaning generalities, would tend only to aggravate the sorrows of the afflicted! When calamity comes upon a person as the result of his sins; when property is taken away which has been gained in an unlawful manner; when a friend dies, leaving no evidence that he was prepared; when it is impossible to speak of that friend without recalling the memory of his irreligious, prayerless, or dissolute life, how difficult is it to

administer consolation! How often is the Christian friend constrained to close his lips in silence, or utter only “torturing” general truths that can give no consolation, or refer to facts which will tend only to open the wound in the heart deeper! To be silent at such times is all that can be done; or to commend the sufferer in humble prayer to God, an expedient which seems not to have been resorted to either by Job or his friends, It is remarkable that Job is not represented as calling upon God for support, and it is as remarkable that his friends during these seven days of silent grief did not commend the case of their much afflicted friend to the Father of mercies. Had “Job” prayed, he might have been kept from much of the improper feeling to which he gave vent in the following chapter; had “they” prayed, they might have obtained much more just views of the government of God than they had hitherto possessed.

03 Chapter 3 Verse 1After this - Dr. Good renders this, “at length.” It means after the long silence of his friends, and after he saw that there was no prospect of relief or of consolation.Opened Job his mouth - The usual formula in Hebrew to denote thc commencement of a speech; see Matthew 5:2. Schultens contends that it means boldness and vehemency of speech, παρρησια parresia or an opening of the mouth for the purpose of accusing, expostulating, or complaining; or to begin to utter some sententious, profound, or sublime maxim; and in support of this he appeals to Psalm 78:2, ard Proverbs 8:6. There is probably, however nothing more intended than to begin to speak. It is in accordance with Oriental views, where an act of speaking is regarded as a grave and important matter, and is entered on with much deliberation. Blackwell (Life of Homer, p. 43) remarks that the Turks, Arabs, Hindoos, and the Orientals in general, have little inclination to society and to general conversation, that they seldom speak, and that their speeches are sententious and brief, unless they are much excited. With such men, to make a speech is a serious matter, as is indicated by the manner in which their discourses are commonly introduced: “I will open my mouth,” or they “opened the mouth,” implying great deliberation and gravity. This phrase occurs often in Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, and in Virgil (compare Aeneid vi. 75), as well as in the Bible. See Burder, in Rosenmuller‘s Morgenland, “in loc.”

And cursed his day - The word rendered “curse” here, qalal is different קלל from that used in Job 1:11; Job 2:9. It is the proper word to denote “to curse.” The Syriac adds, “the day in which he was born.” A similar expression occurs in Klopstock‘s Messias, Ges. iii.Wenn nun, aller Kinder beraubt, die verzweifelude Mutter,Wuthend dem Tag. an dem sie gebahr, und gebohren ward, fluchet.“When now of all her children robbed, the desperate mother enragedCurses the day in which she bare, and was borne.”

Verse 2And Job spake - Margin, as in Hebrew, “answered.” The Hebrew word used here anah “to‛ ענה answer,” is often employed when one commences a discourse, even though no question had preceded. It is somewhat in the sense of replying to a subject, or of speaking in a case where a question might appropriately be asked; Zechariah 3:4; Deuteronomy 26:5 (Hebrew), Deuteronomy 27:14 (Hebrew). The word “to answer” αποκρινομαι apokrinomai is frequently used in this way in the New Testament; Matthew 17:4, Matthew 17:17; Matthew 28:5; Mark 9:5; Mark 10:51, et al.

Verse 3Let the day perish - “Perish the day! O that there had never been such a day! Let it be blotted from the memory of man! There is something singularly bold, sublime, and “wild” in this exclamation. It is a burst of feeling where there had been long restraint, and where now it breaks forth in the most vehement and impassioned manner. The word “perish” here yo'bad expresses יאבד the “optative,” and indicates strong desire. So the Septuagint, Απολοιτο Apoloito “may it perish,” or be destroyed; compare Job 10:18. “O that I had given up the ghost.” Dr. Good says of this exclamation, “There is nothing that I know of, ia ancient or modern poetry, equal to the entire burst, whether in the wildness and horror of the imprecations. or the terrible sublimity of its imagery.” The boldest and most animated of the Hebrew poets have imitated it, and have expressed themselves in almost the same language, in scenes of distress. A remarkably similar expression of feeling is made by Jeremiah.Cursed be the day wherein I was born:Let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed!Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying,

“A man child is born unto thee,”Making him very glad.Be that man as the cities which yahweh overthrew and repented not!Yea, let him hear the outcry in the morning,And the lamentation at noon day!Jeremiah 20:14-16.The sense of this expression in Job is plain. He wished there never had been such a day, and then he would not have been born. It is impossible to vindicate these expressions in Job and Jeremiah, unless it be on the supposition that it is highly worked poetic language, caused by sorrow so acute that it could not be expressed in prose. We are to remember, however, if this seems to us inconsistent with the existence of true piety, that Job had far less light than we have; that he lived at an early period of the world, when the views of the divine government were obscure, and that he was not sustained by the hopes and promises which the Christian possesses now. What light he had was probably that of tradition, and of the result of careful observation on the course of events. His topics of consolation must have been comparatively few. He had few or no promises to sustain him. He had not had before him, as we have, the example of the patient Redeemer. His faith was not sustained by those strong assurances which we have of the perfect rectitude of the divine government. Before we blame him too severely, we must place ourselves in imagination in his circumstances, and ask what our piety would have done under the trials which afflicted “him.” Yet with all allowances, it is not possible to vindicate this language; and while we cannot but admire its force and sublimity, and its unequalled power and boldness in expressing strong passion, we at the same time feel that there was a lack of proper submission and patience. - It is the impassioned language of a man who felt that he could bear no more; and there can be no doubt that it gave to Satan the hope of his anticipated triumph.And the night in which it was said - Dr. Good renders this, “And the night which shouted.” Noyes, “And the night which said.” So Gesenius and Rosenmuller, “Perish the night which said, a man child is conceived.” The Vulgate renders it, “The night in which it was said;” the Septuagint, “That night in which they said.” The Chaldee paraphrases the verse, “Perish the day in which I was born, and the angel who presided ever my conception.” Scott, quoted by Good, translates it, “The night which hailed the new-born man.” The language throughout this imprecation is that in which the night is “personified,” and

addressed as if it were made glad by the birth of a son. So Schultens says, “Inducitur enim “Nox illa quasi conscia mysterii, et exultans ob spem prolis virilis.” Such personifications of day and night are common among the Arabs; see Schultens. It is a representation of day and night as “sympathizing with the joys and sorrows of mankind, and is in the truest vein of Oriental poetry.”There is a man child conceived - Hebrew גבר geber - “a man;” compare John 16:21. The word “conceived” Dr. Good renders “brought forth” So Herder translates it. The Septuagint, Ιδου αρσεν Idou arsen - “lo, a male” The common translation expresses the true sense of the original. The joy at the birth of a male in Oriental countries is much greater than that at the birth of a female. A remarkable instance of an imprecation on the day of one‘s birth is found in a Muslim book of modern times, in which the expressions are almost precisely the same as in Job. “Malek er Nasser Daub, prince of some tribes in Palestine, from which however he had been driven, after many adverse fortunes, died in a village near Damascus in the year 1258. When the crusaders had desolated his country, he deplored its misfortunes and his own in a poem, from which Abulfeda (Annals, p. 560) has quoted the following passage: ‹O that my mother had remained unmarried all the days of her life! That God had determined no lord or consort for her! O that when he had destined her to an excellent, mild, and wise prince, she had been one of those whom he had created barren; that she might never have known the happy intelligence that she had born a man or woman! Or that when she had carried me under her heart, I had lost my life at my birth; and if I had been born, and had seen the light, that, when the congratulating people hastened on their camels, I had been gathered to my fathers.‘” The Greeks and the Romans had their unlucky days ( ημεραι αποφρυδες hemerai apofrudes “dies infausti”); that is, days which were unpropitious, or in which they expected no success in any enterprise or any enjoyment. Tacitus (Annals, xiv. 12) mentions that the Roman Senate, for the purpose of flattering Nero, decreed that the birthday of Agrippina should be regarded as an accursed day; ut dies natalis Agrippinae inter nefastos esset. See Rosenmuller, All. u. neue Morgenland, “in loc” Expressions also similar to those before us, occur in Ovid, particularly in the following passage, “Epist. ad Ibin:”Natus es infelix (ita Dii voluere), nec ullaCommoda nascenti stella, levisve fuit.Lux quoque natalis, ne quid nisi tristo videres,Turpis, et inductis nubibus atra fuit.

Sedit in adverso nocturnas culmine bubo,Funereoque graves edidit ore sonos.We have now similar days, which by common superstition are regarded as unlucky or inauspicious. The wish of Job seems to be, that the day of his birth might be regarded as one of those days.

Verse 4Let that day be darkness - Let it not be day; or, O, that it had not been day, that the sun had not risen, and that it had been night.Let not God regard it from above - The word rendered here “regard” דרש darash means properly to seek or inquire after, to ask for or demand. Dr. Good renders it here, “Let not God inclose it,” but this meaning is not found in the Hebrew. Noyes renders it literally, “Let not God seek it.” Herder, “Let not God inquire after it.” The sense may be, either that Job wished the day sunk beneath the horizon, or in the deep waters by which he conceived the earth to be surrounded, and prays that God would not seek it and bring it from its dark abode; or he desired that God would never inquire after it, that it might pass from his remembrance and be forgotten. What we value, we would wish God to remember and bless; what we dislike, we would wish him to forget. This seems to be the idea here. Job hated that day, and he wished all other beings to forget it. He wished it blotted out, so that even God would never inquire after it, but regard it as if it had never been.Neither let the light shine upon it - Let it be utter darkness; let not a ray ever reveal it. It will be seen here that Job first curses “the day.” The amplification of the curse with which he commenced in the first part of Job 3:3, continues through Job 3:4-5; and then he returns to the “night,” which also (in the latter part of Job 3:3) he wished to be cursed. His desires in regard to that unhappy night, he expresses in Job 3:6-10.

Verse 5Let darkness and the shadow of death - The Hebrew word צלמות tsalmaveth is exceedingly musical and poetical. It is derived from tsel “a shadow,” and צל maveth “death;” and is used to denote the deepest darkness; see the notes מותat Isaiah 9:2. It occurs frequently in the sacred Scriptures; compare Job 10:21-22; Psalm 23:4; Job 12:22; Job 16:16; Job 24:17; Job 34:22; Job 38:17; Amos 5:8; Jeremiah 2:6. It is used to denote the abode of departed spirits, described by

Job as “a land of darkness, as darkness itself; of the shadow of death without any order, and where the light is as darkness;” Job 10:21-22. The idea seems to have been, that “death” was a dark and gloomy object that obstructed all light, and threw a baleful shade afar, and that that melancholy shade was thrown afar over the regions of the dead. The sense here is, that Job wished the deepest conceivable darkness to rest upon it.Stain it - Margin, or “challenge.” Vulgate, “obscure it.” Septuagint, “take or occupy it,” Εκλαβοι Eklaboi Dr. Good, “crush it.” Noyes, “redeem it.” Herder, “seize it.” This variety of interpretation has arisen in part from the twofold signification of the word used here, גאל ga'al The word means either to “redeem,” or to “defile,” “pollute,” “stain.” These senses are not very closely connected, and I know not how the one has grown out of the other, unless it be that redemption was accomplishcd with blood, and that the frequent sprinkling of blood on an altar rendered it defiled, or unclean. In one sense, blood thus sprinkled would purify, when it took away sin; in another, it would render an object unclean or polluted. Gesenius says, that the latter signification occurs only in the later Hebrew. If the word here means to “redeem,” the sense is, that Job wished darknessto resume its dominion over the day, and rcdeem it to itself, and thus wholly to exclude the light.If the word means to defile or pollute, the sense is, that he desired the death-shade to stain the day wholly black; to take out every ray of light, and to render it wholly obscure. Gesenius renders it in the former sense. The sense which Reiske and Dr. Good give to the word, “crush it,” is not found in the Hebrew. The word means to defile, stain, or pollute, in the following places, namely,: it is rendered “pollute” and “polluted” in Malachi 1:7, Malachi 1:12; Zephaniah 3:1; Lamentations 4:14; Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64; “defile” or “defiled” in Isaiah 59:3; Daniel 1:8; Nehemiah 13:29; and “stain” in Isaiah 63:3. It seems to me that this is the sense here, and that the meaning has been well explained by Schultens, that Job wished that his birthday should be involved in a deep “stain,” that it should be covered with clouds and storms, and made dark and dismal. This imprecation referred not only to the day on which he was born, but to each succeeding birthday. Instead of its being on its return a bright and cheerful day, he wished that it might be annually a day of tempests and of terrors; a day so marked that it wouId excite attention as especially gloomy and inauspicious. It was a day whose return conveyed no pleasure to his soul, and which he wished no one to observe with gratitude or joy.

Let a cloud dwell upon it - There is, as Dr. Good and others have remarked, much sublimity iu this expression. The Hebrew word rendered “a cloud” עננה ‛ananah occurs nowhere else in this form. It is the feminine form of the word ענן ‛anan “a cloud,” and is used “collectively” to denote “clouds;” that is, clouds piled on clouds; clouds “condensed, impacted, heaped together” (Dr. Good), and hence, the gathered tempest, the clouds assembled deep and dark, and ready to burst forth in the fury of a storm. Theodotion renders it συννεφεα sunnefea “assembled clouds;” and hence, “darkness,” The Septuagint renders it γνοφος gnophos “tempest,” or “thick darkness.” So Jerome, “caligo.” The word rendered “dwell upon it” שכן shakan means properly to “settle down,” and there to abide or dwell. Perhaps the original notion was that of fixing a tent, and so Schultens renders it, “tentorium figat super eo Nubes,” “Let the cloud pitch its tent over it;” rendered by Dr. Good, “The gathered tempest pavilion over it!” “This is an image,” says Schultens, “common among the Arabs.” The sense is, that Job wished clouds piled on clouds to settle down on the day permanently, to make that day their abode, and to involve it in deep and eternal night.Let the blackness of the day terrify it - Margin, “Or, Let them terrify it as those who have a bitter day.” There has been great variety in the interpretation of this passage. Dr. Good renders it, “The blasts of noontide terrify it.” Noyes, “Let whatever darkens the day terrify it.” Herder, “The blackness of misfortune terrify it.” Jerome, Et involvatur amaritudine, “let it be involved in bitterness.” The Septuagint, καταραθειη η ημερα katarathein he hemera “let the day be cursed.” This variety has arisen from the difficulty of determining the sense of the Hebrew word used here and rendered “blackness,” כמרירים kımrıyrıym If it is supposed to be derived from the word כמר kamar to be warm, to be hot, to burn, then it would mean the deadly heats of the day, the dry and sultry blasts which prevail so much in sandy deserts. Some writers suppose that there is a reference here to the poisonous wind Samum or Samiel, which sweeps over those deserts, and which is so much dreaded in the beat of summer. “Men as well as animals are often suffocated with this wind. For during a great heat, a current of air often comes which is still hotter; and when human beings and animals are so exhausted that they almost faint away with the heat, it seems that this little addition quite deprives them of breath. When a man is suffocated with this wind, or when, as they say, his heart is burst blood is said to flow from his nose and ears two hours after his death. The body is said to remain long warm, to swell, to

turn blue and green, and if the arm or leg is taken hold of to raise it up, the limb is said to come off.”Burder‘s Oriental customs, No. 176. From the testimony of recent travelers, however, it would seem that the injurious effects of this wind have been greatly exaggerated. If this interpretation be the true one, then Job wished the day of his birth to be frightful and alarming, as when such a poisonous blast should sweep along all day, and render it a day of terror and dread. But this interpretation does not well suit the parallelism. Others, therefore, understand by the word, “obscurations,” or whatever darkens the day. Such is the interpretation of Gesenius, Bochart, Noyes, and some others. According to this, the reference is to eclipses or fearful storms which cover the day in darkness. The noun here is not found elsewhere; but the “verb” kamar is used in the sense of being כמר black and dark in Lain. v. 10: “Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine;” or perhaps more literally, “Our skin is scorched as with a furnace, from the burning heat of famine.”That which is burned becomes black, and hence, the word may mean that which is dark, obscure, and gloomy. This meaning suits the parallelism, and is a sense which the Hebrew will bear. Another interpretation regards the Hebrew letter כ (k ) used as a prefix before the word kımrıyrıym “bitterness,” and then כמרירים the sense is, “according to the bitterness of the day;” that is, the greatest calamities which can happen to a day. This sense is found in several of the ancient versions, and is adopted by Rosenmuller. To me it seems that the second interpretation proposed best suits the connection, and that the meaning is, that Job wished that everything which could render the day gloomy and obscure might rest upon it. The Chaldee adds here,” Let it be as the bitterness of day - the grief with which Jeremiah was afflicted in being cut off from the house of the sanctuary, and Jonah in being cast into the sea of Tarshish.”

Verse 6As for “that night.” Job, having cursed the day, proceeds to utter a malediction on the “night” also; see Job 3:3. This malediction extends to Job 3:9.Let darkness seize upon it - Hebrew, Let it take it. Let deep and horrid darkness seize it as its own. Let no star arise upon it; let it be unbroken and uninterrupted gloom. The word “darkness,” however, does not quite express the force of the original. The word used here ophel is' אפל poetic, and denotes darkness more intense than is denoted by the word which is usually rendered

“darkness” choshek It is a darkness accompanied with clouds and with a השך tempest. Herder understands it as meaning, that darkness should seize upon that night and bear it away, so that it should not be joined to the months of the year. So the Chaldee. But the true sense is, that Job wished so deep darkness to possess it, that no star would rise upon it; no light whatever be seen. A night like this Seneca beautifully describes in Agamemnon, verses 465ff:Nox prima coeltum sparserat stellis,Cum subito luna conditur, stellae cadunt;In astra pontus tollitur, et coelum petit.Nec una nox est, densa tenebras obruitCaligo, et Omni luce subducta, fretumCoelumque miscet … Premunt tenebrae lumina, et dirae stygisInferna nox est.Let it not be joined unto the days of the year - Margin, “rejoice among.” So Good and Noyes render it. The word used here yıchad according to the יחד present pointing, is the apocopated future of חדה chadah “to rejoice, to be glad.” If the pointing were different יחד yachad it would be the future of יחד yachad to be one; to be united, or joined to. The Masoretic points are of no authority, and the interpretation which supposes that the word means here to exult or rejoice, is more poetical and beautiful. It is then a representation of the days of the year as rejoicing together, and a wish is expressed that “that” night might never be allowed to partake of the general joy while the months rolled around. In this interpretation Rosenmuller and Gesenius concur. Dodwell supposes that there is an allusion to a custom among the ancients, by which inauspicious days were stricken from the calendar, and their place supplied by intercalary days. But there is no evidence of the existence of snell a custom in the time of Job.Let it not come etc - Let it never be reckoned among the days which go to make up the number of the months. Let there be always a blank there; let its place always be lacking.

Verse 7Lo, let that night be solitary - Dr. Good, “O! that night! Let it be a barren rock!” Noyes, “O let that night be unfruitful!” Herder, “Let that night be set apart by itself.” The Hebrew word used here galmud means properly “hard;” then גלמוד sterile, barren, as of a hard and rocky soil. It does not mean properly solitary, but

that which is unproductive and unfruitful. It is used of a woman who is barren, Isaiah 49:21, and also of that which is lean, famished, emaciated with hunger; Job 15:34; Job 30:3. According to this it means that that should be a night in which none would be born - a night of loneliness and desolation. According to Jerome, it means that the night should be solitary, lonely, and gloomy; a night in which no one would venture forth to make a journey, and in which none would come together to rejoice. Thus interpreted the night would resemble that which is so beautifully describe by Virgil, Aeneid vi. 268:Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbras,Perque domos Ditis vacuas et inania regna.It is probable, however, that the former is the correct interpretation.Let no joyful voice come therein - Let there be no sound of praise and rejoicing. The Chaldee paraphrases this,” Let not the crowing of a cock be heard in it.” The sense of the whole is, that Job wished that night to be wholly desolate. He wished there might be no assembling for amusement, congratulation, or praise, no marriage festivals, and no rejoicing at the birth of children; he would have it as noiseless, solitary, and sad, as if all animals and human beings were dead, and no voice were heard. It was a night hateful to him, and he would have it in no way remembered.

Verse 8Let them curse it who curse the day - This entire verse is exceedingly difficult, and many different expositions have been given of it. It seems evident that it refers to some well-known class of persons, who were accustomed to utter imprecations, and were supposed to have the power to render a day propitious or unpropitious - persons who had the power of divination or enchantment. A belief in such a power existed early in the world, and has prevailed in all savage and semi-barbarous nations, and even in nations considerably advanced in civilization. The origin of this was a desire to look into futurity; and in order to accomplish this, a league was supposed to be made with the spirits of the dead, who were acquainted with the events of the invisible world, and who could be prevailed on to impart their knowledge to favored mortals. It was supposed, also, that by such union there might be a power exerted which would appear to be miraculous.Such persons also claimed to be the favorites of heaven, and to be endowed with control over the elements, and over the destiny of men; to have the power to

bless and to curse, to render propitious or calamitous. Balsaam was believed to be endowed with this power, and hence, he was sent for by Balak, king of Moab, to curse the Israelites; Numbers 22:5-6; see the notes at Isaiah 8:19. The practice of cursing the day, or cursing the sun, is said by Herodotus to have prevailed among a people of Africa, whom he calls the Atlantes, living in the vicinity of Mount Atlas. “Of all mankind,” says he, “of whom we have any knowledge, the Atlantes alone have no distinction of names; the body of the people are termed Atlantes, but their individuals have no appropriate appellation. When the sun is at the highest they heap on it reproaches and execrations, because their country and themselves are parched by its rays; book iv. 184. The same account of them is found in Pliny, Nat. His. v. 8: Solem orientem occidentemque dira imprecatione contuentur, ut exitialem ipsis agrisque. See also Strabo, Lib. xvii. p. 780. Some have supposed, also, that there may be an allusion here to a custom which seems early to have prevailed of hiring people to mourn for the dead, and who probably in their official lamentation bewailed or cursed the day of their calamity; compare Jeremiah 9:17; 2 Chronicles 35:25. But the correct interpretation is doubtless that which refers it to pretended prophets, priests, or diviners - who were supposed to have power to render a day one of ill omen. Such a power Job wished exerted over that unhappy night when he was born. He desired that the curses of those who had power to render a day unpropitious or unlucky, should rest upon it.Who are ready to raise up their mourning - This is not very intelligible, and it is evident that our translators were embarrassed by the passage. They seem to have supposed that there was an allusion here to the practice of employing professional mourners, and that the idea is, that Job wished that they might be employed to howl over the day as inauspicious, or as a day of ill omen. The margin is, as in the Hebrew, “a leviathan.” The word rendered “ready” עתידים ‛athıydıym means properly ready, prepared; and then practiced or skillful. This is the idea here, that they were practiced or skillful in calling up the “leviathan;” see Schultens “in loc.” The word rendered in the text “mourning,” and in the margin “leviathan” lıvyathan in all other parts of the sacred Scriptures denotes an לויתן animal; see it explained in the notes at Isaiah 27:1, and more fully in the notes at Job 41: It usually denotes the crocodile, or some huge sea monster.Here it is evidently used to represent the most fierce, powerful and frightful of all the animals known, and the allusion is to some power claimed by necromancers to call forth the most terrific monsters at their will from distant places, from the

“vasty deep,” from morasses and impenetrable forests. The general claim was, that they had control over all nature; that they could curse the day, and make it of ill omen, and that the most mighty and terrible of land or sea monsters were entirely under their control. If they had such a power, Job wished that they would exercise it to curse the night in which he was born. On what pretensions they founded this claim is unknown. The power, however, of taming serpents, is practiced in India at this day; and jugglers bear around with them the most deadly of the serpent race, having extracted their fangs, and creating among the credulous the belief that they have control over the most noxious animals. Probably some such art was claimed by the ancients. and to some such pretension Job alludes here.

Verse 9Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark - That is, be extinguished, so that it shall be total darkness - darkness not even relieved by a single star. The word here rendered “twilight” ,nesheph means properly a breathing; and hence נשף the evening, when cooling breezes “blow,” or gently breathe. It is used however, to denote both the morning and the evening twilight, though here probably it means the latter. He wishes that the evening of that night, instead of being in any way illuminated, should “set in” with total darkness and continue so. The Septuagint renders it, “night.Let it look for light, but have none - Personifying the night, and representing it as looking out anxiously for some ray of light. This is a beautiful poetic image - the image of “Night,” dark and gloomy and sad, anxiously looking out for a single beam or a star to break in upon its darkness and diminish its gloom.Neither let it see the dawning of the day - Margin, more literally and more beautifully, “eyelids of the morning.” The word rendered “dawning” עפעפים ‛aph‛aphıym means properly “the eyelashes” (from ,(”uph “to fly‛ עוף and it is given to them from their flying or fluttering. The word rendered “day” שחר shachar means the aurora, the morning. The sun when he is above the horizon is called by the poets the eye of day; and hence, his earliest beams, before he is risen, are called the eyelids or eyelashes of the morning opening upon the world. This figure is common in the ancient Classics, and occurs frequently in the Arabic poets; see Schultens “in loc.” Thus, in Soph. Antiq. 104, the phrase occurs, Αμερας βλεφυρον Hameras blefaron So in Milton‘s Lycidas,“ - Ere the high lawns appeared

Under the opening eyelids of the dawn,We drive afield.”Job‘s wish was, that there might be no star in the evening twilight, and that no ray might illuminate that of the morning; that it might be enveloped in perpetual, unbroken darkness.

Verse 10Because it shut not up … - That is, because the accursed day and night did not do it. Aben Ezra supposes that God is meant here, and that the complaint of Job is that he did not close his mother‘s womb. But the more natural interpretation is to refer it to the Νυχθημεροι Nuchthemeroi - the night and the day which he had been cursing, on which he was born. Throughout the description the day and the night are personified, and are spoken of as active in introducing him into the world. He here curses them because they did not wholly prevent his birth.Nor hid sorrow from mine eyes - By preventing my being born. The meaning is, that he would not have known sorrow if he had then died.

Verse 11Why died I not from the womb? - Why did I not die as soon as I was born? Why were any pains taken to keep me alive? The suggestion of this question leads Job in the following verses into the beautiful description, of what he would have been if he had then died. He complains, therefore, that any pains were taken by his friends to keep him alive, and that he was not suffered peacefully to expire.Gave up the ghost - A phrase that is often used in the English version of the Bible to denote death; Genesis 49:33; Job 11:20; Job 14:10; Jeremiah 15:9; Matthew 27:50; Acts 5:10. It conveys an idea, however, which is not necessarily in the original, though the idea in itself is not incorrect. The idea conveyed by the phrase is that of yielding up the “spirit” or “soul,” while the sense of the original here and elsewhere is simply “to expire, to die.”

Verse 12Why did the knees prevent me? - That is, the lap of the nurse or of the mother, probably the latter. The sense is, that if he had not been delicately and tenderly nursed, he would have died at once. He came helpless into the world, and but for the attention of others he would have soon died. Jahn supposes (Archae section

161) that it was a common custom for the father, on the birth of a son, to clasp the new-born child to his bosom, while music was heard to sound, and by this ceremony to declare it as his own. That there was some such recognition of a child or expression of paternal regard, is apparent from Genesis 50:23. Probably, however, the whole sense of the passage is expressed by the tender care which is necessarily shown to the new-born infant to preserve it alive. The word rendered “prevent” here קדם qadam means properly to anticipate, to go before, as the English word “prevent” formerly did; and hence, it means to go to meet anyone in order to aid him in any way. There is much beauty in the word here. It refers to the provision which God has made in the tender affection of the parent to “anticipate” the needs of the child. The arrangement has been made beforehand. God has taken care when the feeble and helpless infant is born, that tender affection has been already created and prepared to meet it. It has not to be created then; it is not to be excited by the suffering of the child; it is already in existence as an active, powerful, and self-denying principle, to “anticipate” the needs of the newborn babe, and to save it from death.

Verse 13For now should I have lain still - In this verse Job uses four expressions to describe the state in which be would have been if he had been so happy as to have died when an infant. It is evidently a very pleasant subject to him, and he puts it in a great variety of form. He uses thc words which express the most quiet repose, a state of perfect rest, a gentle slumber; and then in the next verses he says, that instead of being in the miserable condition in which he then was, he would have been in the same state with kings and the most illustrious men of the earth.I should have lain still - - שכב shakab I should have been “lying down,” as one does who is taking grateful repose. This is a word of less strength than any of those which follow.And been quiet - - שקט shaqat A word of stronger signification than that before used. It means to rest, to lie down, to have quiet. It is used of one who is never troubled, harassed, or infested by others, Judges 3:11; Judges 5:31; Judges 8:25; and of one who has no fear or dread, Psalm 76:9. The meaning is, that he would not only have lain down, but; would have been perfectly tranquil. Nothing would have harassed him, nothing would have given him any annoyance.

I should have slept - - ישן yashen This expression also is in advance of those before used. There would not only have been “quiet,” but there would have been a calm and gentle slumber. Sleep is often representcd as “the kinsman of death.” Thus, Virgil speaks of it:“Tum consanguineus Leti sopor - “Aeneid vi. 278.So Homer:Enth' hupno cumbleto chasigneto thanatoio - Iliad, 14:231.This comparsion is an obvious one, and is frequently used in the Classical writers. It is employed to denote the calmness, stillness, and quiet of death. In the Scriptures it frequently occurs, and with a significancy far more beautiful. It is there employed not only to denote the tranquility of death, but also to denote the Christian hopes of a resurrection and the prospect of being awakened out of the long sleep. We lie down to rest at night with the hopes of awaking again. We sleep calmly, with the expectation that it will be only a temporary repose, and that we shall be aroused, invigorated for augmented toil, and refreshed for sweeter pleasure. So the Christian lies down in the grave. So the infant is committed to the calm slumber of the tomb. It may be a sleep stretching on through many nights and weeks and years and centuries, and even cycles of ages, but it is not eternal. The eyes will be opened again to behold the beauties of creation; the ear will be unstoppod to hear the sweet voice of fricndship and the harmony of music; and the frame will be raised up beautiful and immortal to engage in the service of the God that made us; compare Psalm 13:3; Psalm 90:5; John 11:11; 1 Corinthians 15:51 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:14 ; 1 Thessalonians 5:10 . Whether Job used the word in this sense and with this understanding, has been made a matter of question, and will be considered more fully in the examination of the passage in Job 19:25-27.Then had I been at rest - Instead of the troubles and anxieties which I now experience. That is, he would have been lying in calm and honorable repose with the kings and princes of the earth.

Verse 14With kings - Reposing as they do. This is the language of calm meditation on what would have been the consequence if he had died when he was an infant. He seems to delight to dwell on it. He contrasts it with his present situation. He

pauses on the thought that that would have been an honorable repose. He would have been numbered with kings and princes. Is there not here a little spice of ambition even in his sorrows and humilation? Job had been an eminently rich man; a man greatly honored; an emir; a magistrate; one in whose presence even princes refrained talking, and before whom nobles held their peace; Job 29:9. Now he was stripped of his honors, and made to sit in ashes. But had he died when an infant, he would have been numbered with kings and courtsellers, and would have shared their lot. Death is repulsive; but Job takes comfort in the thought that he would have been associated with the most exalted and honorable among people. There is some consolation in the idea that when an infant dies he is associated with the most honored and exalted of the race; there is consolation in the reflection that when we die we shall lie down with the good and the great of all past times, and that though our bodies shall moulder back to dust, and be forgotten, we are sharing the same lot with the most beautiful, lovely, wise, pious, and mighty of the race. To Christians there is the richest of all consolations in the thought that they will sleep as their Savior did in the tomb, and that the grave, naturally so repulsive, has been made sacred and even attractive by being the place where the Redeemer reposed.Why should we tremble to conveyTheir bodies to the tomb?There the dear flesh of Jesus lay,And left a long perfume.The graves of all his saints he blessed,And softened every bed:Where should the dying members restBut with the dying Head?And counsellors of the earth - Great and wise men who were qualified to give counsel to kings in times of emergency.Which built desolate places for themselves - Gesenius supposes that the word used here (חרבה chorbah ) means palaces which would soon be in ruins. So Noyes renders it, “Who build up for themselves - ruins!” That is, they build splendid palaces, or perhaps tombs, which are destined soon to fall to ruin. Dr. Good renders it, “Who restored to themselves the ruined wastes;” that is, the princes who restored to their former magnificence the ruins of ancient cities, and built their palaces in them But it seems to me that the idea is different. It is, that kings constructed for their own burial, magnificent tombs or mausoleums, which

were lonely and desolate places, where they might lie in still and solemn grandeur; compare the notes at Isaiah 14:18. Sometimes these were immense excavations from rocks; and sometimes they were stupendous structurcs built as tombs. What more desolate and lonely places could be conceived than the pyramids of Egypt - reared probably as the burial places of kings?What more lonely and solitary than the small room in the center of one of those immense structures, where the body of the monarch is supposed to have been deposited? And what more emphatic than the expression - though” so nearly pleonastic that it may be omitted” (“Noyes”) - “for themselves?” To my view, that is far from being pleonastic. It is full of emphasis. The immense structure was made for “them.” It was not to be a common burial-place; it was not for the public good; it was not to be an abode for the living and a contributor to their happiness: it was a matter of supreme selfishness and pride - an immense structure built only run themselves. With such persons lying in their places of lonely grandeur, Job felt it would be an honor to be associated. Compared with his present condition it was one of dignity; and he earnestly wished that it might have been his lot thus early to have been consigned to the fellowship of the dead. It may be some confirmation of this view to remark, that the land of Edom, near which Job is supposed to have lived, contains at this day some of the most wonderful sepulchral monuments of the world; comp the notes at Isaiah 17:1.

Verse 15Or with princes that had gold - That is, he would have been united with the rich and the great. Is there not here too also a slight evidence of the fondness for wealth, which might have been one of the errors of this good man? Would it not seem that such was his estimate of the importance of being esteemed rich, that he would count it an honor to be united with the affluent in death, rather than be subjected to a condition of poverty and want among the living?Who filled their houses with silver - Rosenmuller supposes that there is reference here to the custom among the ancients of burying treasures with the dead, and that the word “houses” refers to the tombs or mausoleums which they erected. That such a custom prevailed, there can be no doubt. Josephus informs us that large quantities of treasure were buried in the tomb with David, which afterward was taken out for the supply of an army; and Schultens (“in loc.”) says that the custom prevailed extensively among the Arabs. The custom of burying valuable objects with the dead was practiced also among the aborigines of N.

America, and is to this day practiced in Africa. If this be the sense here, then the idea of Job was, that he would have been in his grave united with those who even there were accompanied with wealth, rather than suffering the loss of all his property as he was among the living.

Verse 16Or as an hidden untimely birth - As an abortion which is hid, or concealed; that is, which is soon removed from the sight. So the Psalmist, Psalm 58:8:As a snail which melteth, let thom dissolve;As the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.Septuagint εκτρωμα ektroma the same word which is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8 , with reference to himself; see the notes at that place.I had not been - I should have perished; I should not have been a man, as I now am, subject to calamity. The meaning is, that he would have been taken away and concealed, as such an untimely birth is, and that he would never have been numbered among the living and the suffering.As infants which never saw light - Job expresses here no opinion of their future condition, or on the question whether such infants had immortal souls. He is simply saying that his lot would have been as theirs was, and that he would have been saved from the sorrows which he now experienced.

Verse 17There the wicked cease - from “troubling.” In the grave - where kings and princes and infants lie. This verse is often applied to heaven, and the language is such as will express the condition of that blessed world. But as used by Job it had no such reference. It relates only to the grave. It is language which beautifully expresses the condition of the dead, and the “desirableness” even of an abode in the tomb. They who are there, are free from the vexations and annoyances to which people are exposed in this life. The wicked cannot torture their limbs by the fires of persecution, or wound their feelings by slander, or oppress and harass them in regard to their property, or distress them by thwarting their plans, or injure them by impugnlug their motives. All is peaceful and calm in the grave, and “there” is a place where the malicious designs of wicked people cannot reach us. The object of this verse and the two following is! to show the “reasons” why it was desirable to be in the grave, rather than to live and to suffer the ills of this life. We are not to suppose that Job referred

exclusively to his own case in all this. tie is describing, in general, the happy condition of the dead, and we have no reason to think that he had been particularly annoyed by wicked people. But the pious often are, and hence, it should be a matter of gratitude that there is one place, at least, where the wicked cannot annoy the good; and where the persecuted, the oppressed, and the slandered may lie down in peace.And there the weary be at rest - Margin, “Wearied in strength.” The margin is in accordance with the Hebrew. The meaning is, those whose strength is exhausted; who are worn down by the toils and eares of life, and who feel the need of rest. Never was more beautiful language employed than occurs in this verse. What a charm such language throws even over the grave - like strewing flowers, and planting roses around the tomb! Who should fear to die, if prepared, when such is to be the condition of the dead? Who is there that is not in some way troubled by the wicked - by their thoughtless, ungodly life; by persecution, contempt, and slander? compare 2 Peter 2:8 ; Psalm 39:1. Who is there that is not at some time weary with his load of care, anxiety, and trouble? Who is there whose strength does not become exhausted, and to whom rest is not grateful and refreshing? And who is there, therefore, to whom, if prepared for heaven, the grave would not be a place of calm and grateful rest? And though true religion will not prompt us to wish that we had lain down there in early childhood, as Job wished, yet no dictate of piety is violated when “we” look forward with calm delight to the time when we may repose where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary be at rest. O grave, thou art a peaceful spot! Thy rest is calm: thy slumbers are sweet.Nor pain, nor grief, nor anxious fearInvade thy bounds. No mortal woesCan reach the peaceful sleeper here,While angels watch the soft repose.So Jesus slept; God‘s dying SonPassed through the grave, and blest the bed.

Verse 18There the prisoners rest together - Herder translates this, “There the prisoners rejoice in their freedom.” The Septuagint strangely enough, “There they of old ( ο αιωνιοι hoi aionioi ) assembled together ( ομοθυμαδον homothumadon ) have not heard the voice of the exactor.” The Hebrew word שאן sha'an means “to rest, to

be quiet, to be tranquil”; and the sense is, that they are in the grave freed from chains and oppressions.They hear not the voice of the oppressor - Of him who exacted taxes, and who laid on them heavy burdens, and who imprisoned them for imaginary crimes. He who is bound in chains, and who has no other prospect of release, can look for it in the grave and will find it there. Similar sentiments are found respecting death in Seneca, ad Marcian, 20: “Mots omnibus finis, multis remedium, quibusdam votum; haec servitutem invito domino remittit; haec captivorum catenas levat; haec a carcere reducit, quos exire imperium impofens vetuerat; haec exulibus, in pairtam semper animum oculosque tendentibus, ostendit, nibil interesse inter quos quisque jaceat; haec, ubi res communes fortuna male divisit, et aequo jure genitos allure alii donavit, exaequat omnia; haec est, quae nihil quidquam alieno fecit arbitrio; haec est, ea qua nemo humilitatem guam sensit; haec est, quae nuili paruit.” The sense in Job is, that all are at liberty in death. Chains no longer bind; prisons no longer incarccrate; the voice of oppression no longer alarms.

Verse 19The small and the great are there - The old and the young, the high and the low. Death levels all. It shows no respect to age; it spares none because they are vigorous, young, or beautiful. This sentiment has probably been expressed in various forms in all languages, for all people are made deeply sensible of its truth. The Classic reader will recall the ancient proverb,Mors sceptra ligonibus aequat,And the language of Horace:Aequae lege NecessitasSortitur insignes et imos.Omne capax movet urna nomen.Tristis unda scilicet omnibus,Quicunque terrae munere vescimur,Enaviganda, sive reges,Sive inopes erimus coloni.Divesne prisco natus ab lnachoNil interest, an pauper et infimaDe gente sub dio morerisVictima nil miserantis Orci.

Omnes codem cogimur. OmniumVersatur urna. Serius, ocyus,Sors exitura.- Omnes una manet nox,Et calcauda semel via leti. (Nullum)Mista senum acjuvenum densantur funera.Saeva caput Proserpina lugit. (tabernas)Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperumRegumque turres.And the servant is free from his master - Slavery is at an end in the grave. The master can no longer tax the powers of the slave, can no longer scourge him or exact his uncompensated toil. Slavery early existed, and there is evidence here that it was known in the time of Job. But Job did not regard it as a desirable institution; for assuredly that is not desirable from which death would be regarded as a “release,” or where death would be preferable. Men often talk about slavery as a valuable condition of society, and sometimes appeal even to the Scriptures to sustain it; but Job felt that “it was worse than death,” and that the grave was to be preferred because there the slave would be free from his master. The word used here and rendered “free” ( chophshıy חפשי) properly expresses manumission from slavery. See it explained at length in my the notes at Isaiah 58:6.

Verse 20Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery? - The word “light” here is used undoubtedly to denote “life.” This verse commences a new part of Job‘s complaint. It is that God keeps people alive who would prefer to die; that he furnishes them with the means of sustaining existence, and actually preserves them, when they would consider it an inestimable blessing to expire. Schultens remarks, on this part of the chapter, that the tone of Job‘s complaint is considerably modified. He has given vent to his strong feelings, and the language here is more mild and gentle. Still it implies a reflection on God. It is not the language of humble submission. It contains an implied charge of cruelty and injustice; and it laid the foundation for some of the just reproofs which follow.And life unto the bitter in soul - Who are suffering bitter grief. We use the word “bitter” yet to denote great grief and pain.

Verse 21Which long for death - Whose pain and anguish are so great that they would regard it as a privilege to die. Much as people dread death, and much as they have occasion to dread what is beyond, yet there is no doubt that this often occurs. Pain becomes so intense, and suffering is so protracted, that they would regard it as a privilege to be permitted to die. Yet that sorrow “must” be intense which prompts to this wish, and usually must be long continued. In ordinary cases such is the love of life, and such the dread of death and of what is beyond, that people are willing to bear all that human nature can endure rather than meet death; see the notes at Job 2:4. This idea has been expressed with unsurpassed beauty by Shakespeare:For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,The oppressor‘s wrong, the proud man‘s contumelyThe pangs of despised love. the law‘s delay,The insolence of office. and the spurnsThat patient merit of the unworthy takes,When be himself might his quietus makeWith a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,To grunt and sweat under a weary life,But that the dread of something after death - The undiscovered country, from whose bourneNo traveler returns-puzzles the will;And makes us rather bear those ills we have,Than fly to others that we know not of.Hamlet.And dig for it - That is, express a stronger desire for it than people do who dig for treasures in the earth. Nothing would more forcibly express the intense desire to die than this expression.

Verse 22Which rejoice exceedingly - Hebrew “Who rejoice upon joy or exultation” (.el -gıyl ), that is, with exceedingly great joy' אל־גילWhen they can find the grave - What an expression! How strikingly does it express the intense desire to die, and the depth of a man‘s sorrow, when it becomes a matter of exultation for him to be permitted to lie down in the

corruption and decay of the tomb! A somewhat similiar sentiment occurs in Euripides, as quoted by Cicero, Tusc. Quaest. Lib. 1, cap. 48:Nam nos decebat, domanLugere, ubi esset aliquis in lucem editus,Humanae vitae varia reputantes mala;At qui labores morte finisset gravesHunc omni amicos laude et Lactitia exsequi.

Verse 23Why is light given “to a man uhose way is hid?” That is, who does not know what way to take, and who sees no escape from the misery that surrounds him.Whom God hath hedged in - See Notes, Job 1:10. The meaning here is, that God had surrounded him as with a high wall or hedge, so that he could not move freely. Job asks with impatience, why light, that is, life, should be given to such a man? Why should he not be permitted to die? This closes the complaint of Job, and the remaining verses of the chapter contain a statement of his sorrowful condition, and of the fact that he had now been called to suffer all that he had ever apprehended. - In regard to the questions here proposed by Job Job 3:20-23, we may remark, that; there was doubtless much impatience on his part, and not a little improper feeling. The language shows that Job was not absolutely sinless; but let us not harshly blame him. What he says, is a “statement” of feelings which often pass through the mind, though they are not often expressed. Who, in deep and protracted sorrows, has not found such questions rising up in his soul - questions which required all his energy and all his firmness of principle, and all the strength which he could gain by prayer, to suppress? To the questions themselves, it may be difficult to give an answer; and it is certain that none of the friends of Job furnished a solution of the difficulty. When it is asked, why man is kept in misery on earth, when he would be glad to be released by death, perhaps the following, among others, may be the reasons:(1) Those sufferings may be the very means which are needful to develope the true state of the soul. Such was the case with Job.(2) They may be the proper punishment of sin in the heart, of which the individual was not fully aware, but which may be distinctly seen by God. There may be pride, and the love of ease, and self-confidence, and ambition, and a desire of reputation. Such appear to have been some of the besetting sins of Job.(3) They are needful to teach true submission, and to show whether a man is

willing to resign himself to God.(4) They may be the very things which are necessary to prepare the individual to die. At the same time that people often desire death, and feel that it would be a relief, it might be to them the greatest possible calamity. They may be wholly unprepared for it. For a sinner, the grave contains no rest; the eternal world furnishes no repose.One design of God in such sorrows may be, to show to the wicked how “intolerable” will he future pain, and how important it is for them to be ready to die. If they cannot bear the pains and sorrows of a few hours in this short life. how can they endure eternal sufferings? If it is so desirable to be released from the sorrows of the body here, - if it is felt that the grave, with all that is repulsive in it, would be a place of repose, how important is it to find some way to be secured from everlasting pains! The true place of release from suffering for a sinner, is not the grave; it is in the pardoning mercy of God, and in that pure heaven to which he is invited through the blood of the cross. In that holy heaven is the only real repose from suffering and from sin; and heaven will be all the sweeter in proportion to the extremity of pain which is endured on earth.

Verse 24For my sighing cometh before I eat - Margin, “My meat.” Dr. Good renders this,” Behold! my sighing takes the place of my daily food, and refers to Psalm 42:3, as an illustration:My tears are my meat day and night.So substantially Schultens renders it, and explains it as meaning, “My sighing comes in the manner of my food,” “Suspirium ad modum panis veniens” - and supposes it to mean that his sighs and groans were like his daily food; or were constant and unceasing. Dr. Noyes explains it as meaning, “My sighing comes on when I begin to eat, and prevents my taking my daily nourishment;” and appeals to a similar expression in Juvenal. Sat. xiii. 211:Perpetua anxietas, nec mensae tempore cessat.Rosenmuller gives substantially the same explanation, and remarks, also, that some suppose that the mouth, hands, and tongue of Job were so affected with disease, that the effort to eat increased his sufferings, and brought on a renewal of his sorrows. The same view is given by Origen; and this is probably the correct sense.And my roarings - My deep and heavy groans.

Are poured out like the waters - That is,(1) “in number” - they were like rolling billows, or like the heaving deep.(2) Perhaps also in “sound” like them. His groans were like the troubled ocean, that can be heard afar. Perhaps, also,(3.) he means to say that his groans were attended with “a flood of tears,” or that his tears were like the waves of the sea.There is some hyperbole in the figure, in whichever way it is understood; but we are to remember that his feelings were deeply excited, and that the Orientals were in the habit of expressing themselves in a mode, which to us, of more phlegmatic temperament, may seem extravagant in the extreme. We have, however, a similar expression when we say of one that “he burst into a “flood of tears.””

Verse 25For the thing which I greatly feared - Margin, As in the Hebrew “I feared a fear, and it came upon me.” This verse, with the following, has received a considerable variety of exposition. Many have understood it as referring to his whole course of life, and suppose that Job meant to say that he was always apprehensive of some great calamity, such as that which had now come upon him, and that in the time of his highest prosperity be had lived in continual alarm lest his property should be taken. away, and lest he should be reduced to penury and suffering. This is the opinion of Drusius and Codurcus. In reply to this, Schultens has remarked, that such a supposition is contrary to all probability; that there was no reason to apprehend that such calamities as he now suffered, would come upon him; that they were so unusual that they could not have been anticipated; and that, thercfore, the alarm here spoken of, could not refer to the general tenor of his life.That seems to have been happy and calm, and perhaps, if anything, too tranquil and secure. Most interpreters suppose that it refers to the state in which he was “during” his trial, and that it is designed to describe the rapid succession of his woes. Such is the interpretation of Rosenmuller, Schultens, Drs. Good, Noyes, Gill, and others. According to this, it means that his calamities came on him in quick succession. He had no time after one calamity to become composed before another came. When he heard of one misfortune, he naturally dreaded another, and they came on with overwhelming rapidity. If this be the correct interpretation, it means that the source of his lamentation is not merely the

greatness of his losses and his trials considered in the “aggregate,” but the extraordinary rapidity with which they succeeded each other, thus rendering them much more difficult to be borne; see Job 1: He apprehended calamity, and it came suddenly.When one part of his property was taken, he had deep apprehensions respecting the rest; when all his property was seized or destroyed, he had alarm about his children; when the report came that they were dead, he feared some other affliction still. The sentiment is in accordance with human nature, that when we are visited with severe calamity in one form, we naturally dread it in another. The mind becomes exquisitely sensitive. The affections cluster around the objects of attachment which are left, and they become dear to us. When one child is taken away, our affections cling more closely to the one which survives, and any little illness alarms us, and the value of one object of affection is more and more increased - like the Sybil‘s leaves - as another is removed. It is an instinct of our nature, too, to apprehend calamity in quick succession when one comes “Misfortunes seldom come alone;” and when we suffer the loss of one endeared object, we instinctively feel that there may be a succession of blows that will remove all our comforts from us. Such seems to have been the apprehension of Job.

Verse 26I was not in safety - That is, I have, or I had no peace. שלה shalah Septuagint, ουτε ειρηνευσα oute eireneusa - “I had no peace.” The sense is, that his mind had been disturbed with fearful alarms; or perhaps that at that time he was filled with dread.Neither had I rest - Trouble comes upon me in every form, and I am a stranger wholly to peace. The accumulation of phrases here, all meaning nearly the same thing, is descriptive of a state of great agitation of mind. Such an accumulation is not uncommon in the Bible to denote any thing which language can scarcely describe. So in Isaiah 8:22:And they shall look upward; And to the earth shall they look; And lo!rouble and darkness, Gloom, oppression, and deepened darkness.So Job 10:21-22:To the land of darkness and the death-shade,The land of darkness like the blackness of the death-shade,Where is no order, and where the light is as darkness.

Thus, in the Hamasa (quoted by Dr Good), “Death, and devastation, and a remorseless disease, and a still heavier and more terrific family of evils.” The Chaldee has made a remarkable addition here, arising from the general design in the author of that Paraphrase, to explain everything. “Did I not dissemble when the annunciation was made to me respecting the oxen and the asses? Was I not stupid (unalarmed, or unmoved, ,( שדוכית when the report came about the conflagration? Was I not quiet, when the report came respecting the camels? And did not indignation come, when the report was made respecting my sons?”Yet trouble came - Or rather, “and trouble comes.” This is one of the cumulative expressions to denote the rapidity and the intensity of his sorrows. The word rendered “trouble” (רגז rogez ) means properly trembling, commotion, disquiet. Here it signifies such misery as made him tremble. Once the word means wrath Habakkuk 3:2; and it is so understood here by the Septuagint, who renders it οργη orge regard to this chapter, containing the first speech of Job, we may remark, that it is impossible to approve the spirit which it exhibits, or to believe that it was acceptable to God. It laid the foundation for the reflections - many of them exceedingly just - in the following chapters, and led his friends to doubt whether such a man could be truly pious. The spirit which is manifested in this chapter, is undoubtedly far from that calm submission which religion should have produced, and from that which Job had before evinced. That he was, in the main, a man of eminent holiness and patience, the whole book demonstrates; but this chapter is one of the conclusive proofs that he was not absolutely free from imperfection. From the chapter we may learn,(1) That even eminently good men sometimes give utterance to sentiments which are a departure from the spirit of religion, and which they will have occasion to regret. Such was the case here. There was a language of complaint, and a bitterness of expression, which religion cannot sanction, and which no pious man, on reflection, would approve.(2) We see the effect of heavy affliction on the mind. It sometimes becomes overwhelming. It is so great that all the ordinary barriers against impatience are swept away. The sufferer is left to utter language of complaining, and there is the impatient wish that life was closed, or that he had not existed.(3) We are not to infer that because a man in affliction makes use of some expressions which we cannot approve, and which are not sanctioned by the word of God, that therefore he is not a good man. There may be true piety, yet it may be far from perfection; there may be in general submission to God, yet the

calamity may be so overwhelming as to overcome the usual restraints on our corrupt and fallen nature: and when we remember how feeble is our nature at best, and how imperfect is the piety of the holiest of men, we should not harshly judge him who is left to express impatience in his trials, or who gives utterance to sentiments different from those which are sanctioned by the word of God. There has been but one model of pure submission on earth - the Lord Jesus Christ; and after the contemplation of the best of men in their trials, we can see that there is imperfection in them, and that if we would survey absolute perfection in suffering, we must go to Gethsemane and to Calvary.(4) Let us not make the expressions used by Job in this chapter our model in suffering. Let us not suppose that because he used such language, that therefore we may also. Let us not infer that because they are found in the Bible, that therefore they are right; or that because he was an unusually holy man, that it would be proper for us to use the same language that he did. The fact that this book is a part of the inspired truth of revelation, does not make such language right. All that inspiration does, in such a case, is to secure an exact record of what was actually said; it does not, of necessity, sanction it any more than an accurate historian can be supposed to approve all that he records. There may be important reasons why it should be preserved, but he who makes the record is not answerable for the truth or propriety of what is recorded. The narrative is true; the sentiment may be false. The historian may state exactly what was said or done: but what was said or done, may have violated every law of truth and justice; and unless the historian expresses some sentiment of approbation, he can in no sense be held answerable for it. So with the narratives in the Bible. Where a sentiment of approbation or disapprobation is expressed, there the sacred writer is answerable for it; in other cases he is answerable only for the correctness of the record. This view of the nature of inspiration will leave us at liberty freely to canvass the speeches made in the book of Job, and make it more important that we compare the sentiments in those speeches with other parts of the Bible, that we may know what to approve, and what was erroneous in Job or his friends.

04 Chapter 4 Verse 1Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered - See the notes at Job 2:11.

Verse 2If we assay to commune with thee - Margin, A word. Hebrew - דבר הנסה dabar hanıcah “May we attempt a word with thee?” This is a gentle and polite apology at the beginning of his speech - an inquiry whether he would take it as unkind if one should adventure on a remark in the way of argument. Jahn, in characterizing the part which Job‘s three friends respectively take in the controversy, says: “Eliphaz is superior to the others in discernment and delicacy. He begins by addressing Job mildly; and it is not until irritated by opposition that he reckons him among the wicked.”Wilt thou be grieved? - That is, Wilt thou take it ill? Will it be offensive to you, or weary you, or tire your patience? The word used here (לאה la'ah ) means to labor, to strive, to weary, to exhaust; and hence, to be weary, to try one‘s patience, to take anything ill. Here it is the language of courtesy, and is designed to introduce the subsequent remarks in the kindest manner. Eliphaz knew that he was about to make observations which might implicate Job, and he introduced them in as kind a manner as possible. There is nothing abrupt or harsh in his beginning. All is courteous in the highest degree, and is a model for debaters.But who can withhold himself from speaking? - Margin, “Refrain from words.” That is, “the subject is so important, the sentiments advanced by Job are so extraordinary, and the principles involved are so momentous, that it is impossible to refrain.” There is much delicacy in this. He did not begin to speak merely to make a speech. He professes that be would not have spoken, if he had not been pressed by the importance of the subject, and had not been full of matter. To a great extent, this is a good rule to adopt: not to make a speech unless there are sentiments which weigh upon the mind, and convictions of duty which cannot be repressed.

Verse 3Behold, thou hast instructed many - That is, thou hast instructed many how they ought to bear trials, and hast delivered important maxims to them on the great subject of the divine government. This is not designed to be irony, or to wound the feelings of Job. It is intended to recall to his mind the lessons which he had inculcated on others in times of calamity, and to show him how important it was now that he should reduce his own lessons to practice, and show their power in sustaining himself.

Thou hast strengthened the weak hands - That is, thou hast aided the feeble. The hands are the instruments by which we accomplish anything, and when they are weak, it is an indication of helplessness.

Verse 4Thy words have upholden him that was falling - That is, either falling into sin, or sinking under calamity and trial. The Hebrew will bear either interpretation, but the connection seems to require us to understand it of one who was sinking under the weight of affliction.The feeble knees - Margin, “bowing.” The knees support the frame. If they fail, we are feeble and helpless. Hence, their being weak, is so often used in the Bible to denote imbecility. The sense is, that Job, in the days of his own prosperity, had exhorted others to submit to God; had counselled them in such a manner as actually to give them support, and that the same views should now have sustained him which he had so successfully employed in comforting others.

Verse 5But now it is come upon thee - That is, calamity; or, the same trial which others have had, and in which thou hast so successfully exhorted and comforted them. A similar sentiment to that which is here expressed, is found in Terence:Facile omnes, cum valemus, recta consilia aegrotis damus.And. ii. i. 9.It toucheth thee - That is, affliction has come to yourself. It is no longer a thing about which you can coolly sit down and reason, and on which you can deliver formal exhortations.And thou art troubled - Instead of evincing the calm submission which you have exhorted others to do, your mind is now disturbed and restless. You vent your complaints against the day of your birth, and you charge God with injustice. A sentiment resembling this, occurs in Terence, as quoted by Codurcus:Nonne id flagitium est, te aliis consilium dare,Foris sapere, tibi non posse te auxiliarier?Something similar to this not unfrequently occurs. It is an easy thing to give counsel to others, and to exhort them to be submissive in trial. It is easy to utter general maxims, and to suggest passages of Scripture on the subject of affliction, and even to impart consolation to others; but when trial comes to ourselves, we often fail to realize the power of those truths to console us. Ministers of the

gospel are called officially to impart such consolations, and are enabled to do it. But when the trial comes on them, and when they ought by every solemn consideration to be able to show the power of those truths in their own case, it sometimes happens that they evince the same impatience and want of submission which they had rebuked in others; and that whatever truth and power there may have been in their instructions, they themselves little felt their force. It is often necessary that he who is appointed to comfort the afflicted, should be afflicted himself. Then he can “weep with those who weep;” and hence, it is that ministers of the gospel are called quite as much as any other class of people to pass through deep waters. Hence, too, the Lord Jesus became so pre-eminent in suffering, that he might be touched with the feelings of our infirmity, and be qualified to sympathize with us when we are tried; Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 4:15-16. It is exceedingly important that when they whose office it is to comfort others are afflicted, they should exhibit an example of patience and submission. Then is the time to try their religion; and then they have an opportunity to convince others that the doctrines which they preach are adapted to the condition of weak and suffering man.

Verse 6Is not this thy fear, thy confidence? - There has been considerable variety in the interpretation of this verse. Dr. Good renders it,Is thy piety then nothing? thy hopeThy contidence? or the uprightness of thy ways?Noyes renders it,Is not thy fear of God thy hope,And the uprightness of thy ways the confidence?Rosenmuller translates it,Is not in thy piety and integrity of lifeThy confidence and hope?In the Vulgate it is translated, “Where is thy fear, thy fortitude, thy patience, and the integrity of thy ways?” In the Septuagint, “Is not thy fear founded on folly, and thy hope, and the evil of thy way?”Castellio translates it,Nimirum tanturn religionis, quantum expectationis;Quantum spei, tanturn habebas integritatis morum;

And the idea according to his version is, that he had as much religion as was prompted by the hope of reward; that his piety and integrity were sustained only by his hope, and were not the result of principle; and that of course his religion was purely selfish. If this be the sense, it is designed to be a reproach, and accords with the charge in the question of Satan Job 1:9, “Doth Job fear God for naught?” Rosenmuller adopts the opinion of Ludovicus de Dieu, and explains it as meaning,” You seemed to be a man fearing God, and a man of integrity, and you were led hence to cherish high hopes and expectations; but now you perceive that you were deceived. Your piety was not sincere and genuine, for the truly pious do not thus suffer. Remember therefore that no one perishes being innocent.” Codurcus renders it, “All thy hope was placed in thy religion, and thy expectation in the rectitude of thy ways; consider now, who perishes being innocent?” The true sentiment of the passage has undoubtedly been expressed by Good, Noyes. and Codurcus. The Hebrew rendered thy fear יראתך yare'tek means doubtless religious fear, veneration, or piety, and is a word synonymous with ευλαβεια eulabeia ευσεβεια eusebeia religion. The sentiment is, that his confidence or hope was placed in his religion - in his fear of God, his respect and veneration for him, and in reliance on the equity of his government. This had been his stay in times past; and this was the subject which was naturally brought before him then. Eliphaz asks whether he should not put his trust in that God still, and not reproach him as unequal and unjust in his administration.The uprightness of thy ways - Hebrew, The perfection of thy ways. Note Job 1:1. The idea is, that his hope was founded on the integrity of his life, and on the belief that the upright would be rewarded. The passage may be rendered,Is not thy confidence and thy expectationFounded on thy religion,And on the integrity of thy ways?This is the general sentiment which Eliphaz proceeds to illustrate and apply. If this was a just principle, it was natural to ask whether the trials of Job did not prove that he had no well grounded reason for such confidence.

Verse 7Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? - The object of this question is manifestly to show to Job the inconsistency of the feelings which he had evinced. He claimed to be a righteous man. He had instructed and counselled many others. He had professed confidence in God, and in the

integrity of his own ways. It was to have been expected that one with such pretensions would have evinced resignation in the time of trial, and would have been sustained by the recollection of his integrity. The fact, therefore, that Job had thus “fainted,” and had given way to impatient expressions, showed that he was conscious that he had not been altogether what he had professed to be. “There must have been,” is the meaning of Eliphaz, “something wrong, when such calamities come upon a man, and when his faith gives way in such a manner. It would be contrary to all the analogy of the divine dealings to suppose that such a man as Job had professed to be, could be the subject of overwhelming judgments; for who, I ask, ever perished, being innocent? It is a settled principle of the divine government, that no one ever perishes who is innocent, and that great calamities are a proof of great guilt.”This declaration contains the essence of all the positions held by Eliphaz and his colleagues in this argument. This they considered as so established that no one could call it in question, and on the ground of this they inferred that one who experienced such afflictions, no matter what his professions or his apparent piety had been, could not be a good man. This was a point about which the minds of the friends of Job were settled; and though they seem to have been disposed to concede that some afflictions might happen to good men, yet when sudden and overwhelming calamities such as they now witnessed came upon them, they inferred that there must have been corresponding guilt. Their reasoning on this subject - which runs through the book - perplexed but did not satisfy Job, and was obviously based on a wrong principle - The word “perished” here means the same as cut off, and does not differ much from being overwhelmed with calamity. The whole sentence has a proverbial cast; and the sense is, that when persons were suddenly cut off it proved that they were not innocent. Job, therefore, it was inferred, could not be a righteous man in these unusual and very special trials.Or where were the righteous cut off? - That is, by heavy judgment; by any special and direct visitation. Eliphaz could not mean that the righteous did not die - for he could not be insensible to that fact; but he must have referred to sudden calamities. This kind of reasoning is common - that when men are afflicted with great and sudden calamities they must be especially guilty. It prevailed in the time of the Savior, and it demanded all his authority to settle the opposite principle; see Luke 13:1-5. It is that into which people naturally and easily fall; and it required much observation, and long experience, and enlarged views of the divine administration, to draw the true lines on this subject. To a certain

extent, and in certain instances, calamity certainly does prove that there is special guilt. Such was the case with the old world that was destroyed by the deluge; such was the case with the cities of the plain; such is the case in the calamities that come upon the drunkard, and such too in the special curse produced by indulgence in licentiousness. But this principle does not run through all the calamities which befall people. A tower may fall on the righteous as well as the wicked; an earthquake may destroy the innocent as well as the guilty; the pestilence sweeps away the holy and the unholy, the profane and the pure, the man who fears God and him who fears him not; and the inference is now seen to be too broad when we infer, as the friends of Job did, that no righteous man is cut off by special calamity, or that great trials demonstrate that such sufferers are less righteous than others are. Judgments are not equally administered in this world, and hence, the necessity for a future world of retribution; see the notes at Luke 13:2-3.

Verse 8Even as I have seen - Eliphaz appeals to his own observation, that people who had led wicked lives were suddenly cut off. Instances of this kind he might doubtless have observed - as all may have done. But his inference was too broad when he concluded that all the wicked are punished in this manner. It is true that wicked people are thus cut off and perish; but it is not true that all the wicked are thus punished in this life, nor that any of the righteous are not visited with similar calamities. His reasoning was of a kind that is common in the world - that of drawing universal conclusions from premises that are too narrow to sustain them, or from too few carefully observed facts.They that plow iniquity - This is evidently a proverbial expression; and the sense is, that as people sow they reap. If they sow wheat, they reap wheat; if barley, they reap barley; if tares, they reap tares. Thus, in Proverbs 22:8:“He that soweth iniquity shall reap also vanity.”So in Hosea 8:7:“For they have sown the wind,And they shall reap the whirlwind:It hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no mealIf so be it yield, strangers shall swallow it up”Thus, in the Persian adage:“He that planteth thorns shall not gather roses.”

Dr. Good.So Aeschylus:Ατης αρουρα Θανατον εκκαρπιζεται. Ates aroura thanaton ekkarpizetai The field of wrong brings forth death as its fruit.The meaning of Eliphaz is, that people who form plans of wickedness must reap appropriate fruits. They cannot expect that an evil life will produce ultimate happiness.sa40

Verse 9By the blast of God - That is, by the judgment of God. The figure is taken from the hot and fiery wind, which, sweeping over a field of grain, dries it up and destroys it. In like manner Eliphaz says the wicked perish before God.And by the breath of his nostrils - By his anger. The Scripture often speaks of breathing out indignation and wrath; Acts 9:1; Psalm 27:12; 2 Samuel 22:16 ; Psalm 18:15; Psalm 33:6; notes at Isaiah 11:4; notes at Isaiah 30:28; notes at Isaiah 33:11. The figure was probably taken from the violent breathing which is evinced when the mind is under any strong emotion, especially anger. It refers here to any judgment by which God cuts off the wicked, but especially to sudden calamity - like a tempest or the pestilence.

Verse 10The roaring of the lion - This is evidently a continuation of the argument in the preceding verses, and Eliphaz is stating what had occurred under his own observation. The expressions have much of a proverbial cast, and are designed to convey in strong poetic language what he supposed usually occurred. There can be no reasonable doubt here that he refers to men in these verses, for(1) It is not true that the lion is destroyed in this manner. No more frequent calamity comes upon him than upon other animals, and perhaps he is less frequently overcome than others.(2) Such a supposition only would make the remarks of Eliphaz pertinent to his argument. He is speaking of the divine government in regard to wicked people, and he uses this language to convey the idea that they are often destroyed.(3) It is common in the Scriptures, as in all Oriental writings, and indeed in Greek and Roman poetry, to compare unjust, cruel, and rapacious men with wild

animals; see the notes at Psalm 10:9; Psalm 58:6.Eliphaz, therefore, here by the use of the words rendered lion, means to say that men of savage temper, and cruel dispositions, and untamed ferocity, were cut off by the judgments of God. It is remarkable that he employs so many words to designate the lion in these two verses. No less than five are employed, all of them probably denoting originally some special and striking characteristics of the lion. It is also an illustration of the copiousness of the Hebrew language in this respect, and is a specimen of the custom of speaking in Arabia. The Arabic language is so copious that the Arabs boast that they have four hundred terms by which to designate the lion. A large part of them are, indeed, figurative expressions, derived from some quality of the animal, but they show a much greater copiousness in the language than can be found in Western dialects. The words used here by Eliphaz are about all the terms by which the “lion” is designated in the Scriptures. They are אריה 'aryeh שחל shachal כפיר kephıyr ליש layısh and לביא labıy' The word שחץ shachats elations, pride, is given to the lion, Job 28:8; Job 41:34, from his proud gait; and perhaps the word arıy'el' אריאל 1 Samuel 17:10 ; 1 Chronicles 11:22 . But Eliphaz has exhausted the usual epithets of the lion in the Hebrew language. It may be of some interest to inquire, in a few words, into the meaning of those which he has used.The roaring of the lion - The word used here (אריה 'aryeh ) or in a more usual form (ארי 'arıy ), is from, ארה 'arah to pull, to pluck, and is probably given to the lion as the puller in pieces, on account of the mode in which he devours his prey, Bochart, however, contends that the name is not from, ,because, says he ,ארה the lion does not bite or crop his food like grass, which, he says, the word properly means, but is from the verb ראה ra'ah to see, because, says he, the lion is the most keen-sighted of the animals; or rather from the fire of his eyes - the terror which the glance of his eye inspires. So the Greeks derive the word lion, λεοντα leonta from λαω lao to see. See Beehart, Hieroz. Lib. iii. c. 1, p. 715.The voice of the fierce lion - The word here translated “fierce lion” (שחל shıchal ) is from שחל shachal to roar, and hence, given for an obvious reason to a lion. Bochart understands by it the swarthy lion of Syria; the lion which the Arabians call adlamon This lion, says he, is dark and dingy. The usual color of the lion is yellow, but Oppian says that the lion in Aethiopia is sometimes found of a dark color, μελανοχροος melanochroos see Bochart, Hieroz. Lib. i. c. 1, p. 717,718.The teeth of the young lions - The word used here, kephıyr means a כפיר “young lion already weaned, and beginning to hunt for prey.” - Gesenius. It thus

differs from the גור gur which means a whelp, still under the care of the dam; see Ezekiel 19:2-3; compare Bochart, Hieroz. Lib. iii. c. 1, p. 714. Some expression is here evidently to be understood that shall be applicable to the voice, or the roaring of the lion. Noyes supplies the words, “are silenced.” The words “are broken” can be applicable only to the teeth of the young lions. It is unnatural to say that the “roaring” and the “voice” are broken. The sense is, that the lion roars in vain, and that calamity and destruction come notwithstanding his growl; and as applied to men, it means that men who resemble the lion are disappointed and punished.

Verse 11The old lion - The word used here, ליש layısh denotes a lion, “so called,” says Gesenius,” from his strength and bravery,” or, according to Urnbreit, the lion in the strength of his old ago; see an examination of the word in Bochart, Hieroz. P. i. Lib. iii. c. 1, p. 720.Perisheth for lack of prey - Not withstanding his strength and power. That is, such a thing sometimes occurs. Eliphaz could not maintain that it always happened. The meaning seems to be, that as the strength of the lion was no security that he would not perish for want, so it was with men who resembled the lion in the strength of mature age.And the stout lion‘s whelps - The word here rendered “stout lion,” לביא labıy' is probably derived from the obsolete root לבא laba' “to roar,” and it is given to the lion on account of his roaring. Bochart, Hieroz. P. i. Lib. iii. c. 1. p. 719, supposes that the word means a lioness. These words complete the description of the lion, and the sense is, that the lion in no condition, or whatever name indicative of strength might be given to it, bad power to resist God when he came forth for its destruction. Its roaring, its strength, its teeth, its rage, were all in vain.Are scattered abroad - That is, when the old lion is destroyed, the young ones flee, and are unable to offer resistance. So it is with men. When the divine judgments come upon them, they have no power to make successful resistance. God has them under control, and he comes forth at his pleasure to restrain and subdue them, as he does the wild beasts of the desert, though so fearful and formidable.

Verse 12

Now a thing - To confirm his views, Eliphaz appeals to a vision of a most remarkable character which he says he had had on some former occasion on the very point under consideration. The object of the vision was, to show that mortal man could not be more just than God, and that such was the purity of the Most High, that he put no confidence comparatively even in the angels. The design for which this is introduced here is, evidently, to reprove what he deemed the unfounded self-confidence of Job. He supposed that he had been placing an undue reliance on his own integrity; that he had not a just view of the infinite holiness of God, and had not been aware of the true state of his own heart. The highest earthly excellency, is the meaning of Eliphaz, fades away before God, and furnishes no ground for self-reliance. It is so imperfect, so feeble, so far from what it should be, that it is no wonder that a God so holy and exalted should disregard it: He designed also, by describing this vision, to reprove Job for seeming to be more wise than his Maker in arraigning him for his dealings, and uttering the language of complaint. The word “thing” here means a word (Hebrew), a communication, a revelation.Was secretly brought to me - Margin, “by stealth.” The Hebrew word גנב) ganab ) means “to steal,” to take away by stealth, or secretly. Here it means, that the oracle was brought to him as it were by stealth. It did not come openly and plainly, but in secrecy and silence - as a thief approaches a dwelling. An expression similar to this occurs in Lucian, in Amor. p. 884, as quoted by Schultens, κλεπτομενη λαλια και ψιθυρισμος kleptomene lalia kai psithurismos And mine ear received a little thereof - Dr. Good translates this, “And mine ear received a whisper along with it.” Noyes, “And mine ear caught a whisper thereof.” The Vulgate, “And my ear received secretly the pulsations of its whisper” - venas susurri ejus. The word rendered “a little,” שמץ shemets occurs only here and in Job 26:14, where it is also rendered little. It means, according to Gesenius, a transient sound rapidly uttered and swiftly passing away. Symm. ψιθυρισμος psithurismos - a whisper. According to Castell, it means a sound confused and feeble, such as one receives when a man is speaking in a hurried manner, and when he cannot catch all that is said. This is probably the sense here. Eliphaz means to say that he did not get all that might have been said in the vision. It occurred in such circumstances, and what was said was delivered in such a manner, that he did not hear it all distinctly.But he beard an important sentiment, which he proceeds to apply to the case of Job. - It has been made a question whether Eliphaz really had such a vision, or

whether he only supposed such a case, and whether the whole representation is not poetic. The fair construction is, that he had had such a vision. In such a supposition there is nothing inconsistent with the mode in which the will of God was made known in ancient times; and in the sentiments uttered there is nothing inconsistent with what might have been spoken by a celestial visitant on such an occasion. All that was spoken was in accordance with the truth everywhere revealed in the Scriptures, though Eliphaz perverted it to prove that Job was insincere and hypocritical. The general sentiment in the oracle was, that man was not pure and holy compared with his Maker; that no one was free from guilt in his sight; that there was no virtue in man in which God could put entire confidence; and that, therefore, all were subjected to trials and to death. But this general sentiment he proceeds to apply to Job, and regards it as teaching, that since he was overwhelmed with such special afflictions, there must have been some secret sin of which he was guilty, which was the cause of his calamities.

Verse 13In thoughts - Amidst the tumultuous and anxious thoughts which occur in the night. The Hebrew word rendered thoughts, (שעפים sa‛ıphıym ), means thoughts which divide and distract the mind.From the visions of the night - On the meaning of the word visions, see the notes at Isaiah 1:1. This was a common mode in which the will of God was made known in ancient times. For an extended description of this method of communicating the will of God, the reader may consult my Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7.When deep sleep falleth on men - The word here rendered deep sleep, תרדמה tardemah commonly denotes a profound repose or slumber brought upon man by divine agency. So Schultens in loc. It is the word used to describe the “deep sleep” which God brought upon Adam when he took from his side a rib to form Eve, Genesis 2:21; and that, also, which came upon Abraham, when an horror of great darkness fell upon him; Genesis 15:12. It means here profound repose, and the vision which he saw was at that solemn hour when the world is usually locked in slumber. Umbreit renders this, “In the time of thoughts, before the night-visions,” and supposes that Eliphaz refers to the time that was especially favorable to meditation and to serious contemplation before the time of sleep and of dreams. In support of this use of the preposition מן mın he appeals to Haggai 2:16, and Noldius Concord. Part. p. 546.

Our common version, however, has probably preserved the true sense of the passage. It is impossible to conceive anything more sublime than this whole description. It was midnight. There was solitude and silence all around. At that fearful hour this vision came, and a sentiment was communicated to Eliphaz of the utmost importance, and fitted to make the deepest possible impression. The time; the quiet; the form of the image; its passing along, and then suddenly standing still; the silence, and then the deep and solemn voice - all were fitted to produce the proroundest awe. So graphic and so powerful is this description, that it would be impossible to read it - and particularly at midnight and alone - without something of the feeling of awe and horror which Eliphaz says it produced on his mind. It is a description which for power has probably never been equalled, though an attempt to describe an apparition from the invisible world has been often made. Virgil has attempted such a description, which, though exceedingly beautiful, is far inferior to this of the Sage of Teman. It is the description of the appearance of the wife of Aeneas:Infelix simulacrum atque ipsius umbra CrousaeVisa mihi ante oculos, et nora major imago.Obstupui, steteruntque comae, et vox faucibus haesit.Aeneid ii. 772.- “At length she hears,And sudden through the shades of night appears;Appears no more Creusa, nor my wife,But a pale spectre, larger than the life.Aghast, astonished, and struck dumb with fear,I stood: like bristles rose my stiffened hair.”DrydenIn the poems of Ossian, there are several descriptions of apparitions or ghosts, probably more sublime than are to be found in any other uninspired writings. One of the most magnificent of these, is that of the Spirit of Loda, which I will copy, in order that it may be compared with the one before us. “The wan cold moon rose in the east. Sleep dcscended on the youths. Their blue helmets glitter to the beam; the fading fire decays. But sleep did not rest on the king. He rose in the midst of his arms, and slowly ascended the hill, to behold the flame of Sarno‘s tower. The flame was dim and distant: the moon hid her red flame in the east. A blast came from the mountain; on its wings was the Spirit or loda. He came to his place in his terrors, and shook his dusky spear. His eyes appear like flames in his

dark face; his voice is like distant thunder. Fingal advanced his spear amid the night, and raised his voice on high. ‹Son of Night, retire: call thy winds, and fly! Why dost thou come to my presence with thy shadowy arms? Do I fear thy gloomy form, spirit of dismal Loda? Weak is thy shield of clouds; feeble is that meteor, thy sword! The blast rolls them together; and thou thyself art lost. Fly from my presence, Son of Night! Call thy winds and fly! ‹ ‹Dost thou force me from my place? ‹ replied the hollow voice. ‹The people bend before me. I turn the battle in the field of the brave. I look on the nations, and they vanish; my nostrils pour the blast of death. I come abroad on the winds; the tempests are before my face, but my dwelling is calm above the clouds; the fields of my rest are pleasant.‘” Compare also, the description of the Ghost in Hamlet.

Verse 14Fear came upon me - Margin, “Met me.” The Chaldee Paraphrase renders this, “a tempest,” .זיקא The Septuagint, φρικη frike - “shuddering,” or “horror.” The sense is, that he became greatly alarmed at the vision.Which made all my bones to shake - Margin, as in Hebrew, the multitude of my bones. A similar image is employed by Virgil,Obstupuere auimis, gelidusque per ima cucurritOssa tremor;Aeneid ii. 120.“A cold tremor ran through all their bones.”

Verse 15Then a spirit passed before my face - He does not intimate whether it was the spirit of a man, or an angel who thus appeared. The belief in such apparitions was common in the early ages, and indeed has prevailed at all times. No one can demonstrate that God could not communicate his will in such a manner as this, or by a messenger deputed from his immediate presence to impart valuable truth to people.The hair of my flesh stood up - This is an effect which is known often to be produced by fear. Sometimes the hair is made to turn white almost in an instant, as an effect of sudden alarm; but usually the effect is to make it stand on end. Seneca uses language remarkably similar to this in describing the effect of fear, in Hercule Oetoeo:Vagus per artus errat excussos tremor;

Erectus horret crinis. Impulsis adhucStar terror animis. et cor attonitum salit,Pavidumque trepidis palpitat venis jecur.So Virgil,Steteruntque comae, et vox faucibus haesit.Aeneid ii. 774.See also Aeneid iii. 48, iv. 289. So also Aeneid xii. 868:Arrectaeque horrore comae.A similar description of the effect of fear is given in the Ghost‘s speech to Hamlet:“But that I am forbidTo tell the secrets of my prison-house,I could a tale unfold, whose lightest wordWould harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood.Make thy two eyes like stars, start from their spheres,Thy knotty and combined locks to part,And each particular hair to stand on end,Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.”The fact here referred to - that fear or fright; causes the hair to stand on end - is too well established, and too common to admit a doubt. The cause may be, that sudden fear has the effect to drive the blood to the heart, as the seat of vitality, and the extremities are left cold, and the skin thus contracts, and the effect is to raise the hair.

Verse 16It stood still - It took a fixed position and looked on me. It at first glided by, or toward him, then stood in an immovable position, as if to attract his attention, and to prepare him for the solemn announcement which it was about to make. This was the point in which most horror would be felt. We should be less alarmed at anything which a strange messenger should say, than to have him stand and fix his eyes steadily and silently upon us. Hence, Horatius, in “Hamlet,” tortured by the imperturbable silence of the Ghost, earnestly entreated it to give him relief by speaking.Hor. - What art thou that usurp‘st this time of night,Together with that fair and warlike formIn which the majesty of buried DenmarkDid sometime march? By heaven, I charge thee, speak.

Mar. - It is offended.Ber. - See: It stalks away.Hor. - Stay; speak: speak, I charge thee speak.Act i. Sc. i.Re-enter Ghost.Hor. - But, soft; behold! lo, where it comes again!I‘ll cross it, though it blast me. - Stay, illusion!If thou hast any sound, or use of voice,Speak to me:If there be any good thing to be done,That may to thee do ease, and grace to me,Speak to me:Which, happily, foreknowing may avoid,If thou art privy to thy country‘s fate.O speak!Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy lifeExtorted treasure in the womb of earth,For which, they say, you spirits oft walk in death,Speak of it; stay, and speak.Act i. Sc. i.Enter GhostHor. - Look, my lord; it comes!Ham. - Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damn‘d,Bring with thee airs from heaven, or blasts from hell,Be thy intents wicked or charitable,Thou com‘st in such a questionable shape,That I will speak to thee: I‘ll call thee, Hamlet,King, father, royal Dane: O, answer me;Let me not burst in ignorance!Act i: Sc. iv.But I could not discern the form thereof - This might have arisen from fear, or from the darkness of the night, or because the spirit was not distinct enough in its outline to enable him to do it. There is here just the kind of obscurity which is essential to the sublime, and the statement of this circumstance is a master-stroke in the poet. A less perfect imagination would have attempted to describe

the form of the spectre, and would have given an account of its shape, and eyes, and color. But none of these are here hinted at. The subject is left so that the imagination is most deeply impressed, and the whole scene has the aspect of the highest sublimity. Noyes very improperly renders this, “Its face I could not discern.” But the word used, מראה mar'eh does not mean “face” here merely; it means the form, figure, aspect, of the spectre.An image was before mine eyes - Some form; some appearance was before me, whose exact figure I could not mark or describe.There was silence - Margin, “I heard a still voice.” So Rosenmuller says that the word here, דממה demamah does not mean silence, but a gentle breeze, or air - auram lenem - such as Elijah heard after the tempest had gone by, and when God spoke to him, 1 Kings 19:12-13 . Grotins supposes that it means here the bath qol or “daughter of the voice,” of which the Jewish Robbins speak so בת־קולoften - the still and gentle voice in which God spoke to people. The word used demamah usually means silence, stillness, as of the winds after a storm, a דממהcalm, Psalm 107:29. The Septuagint renders it, “I heard a gentle breeze, αυραν auran and a voice,” και φωνην kai phonen But it seems to me that the common reading is preferable. There was stillness - a solemn, awful silence, and then he heard a voice impressively speaking. The stillness was designed to fix the attention, and to prepare the mind for the sublime announcement which was to be made.

Verse 17Shall mortal man - Or, shall feeble man. The idea of “mortal” is not necessarily implied in the word used here, אנוש 'enosh It means man; and is usually applied to the lower classes or ranks of people; see the notes at Isaiah 8:1. The common opinion in regard to this word is, that it is derived from אנש 'anash to be sick, or ill at ease; and then desperate, or incurable - as of a disease or wound; Jeremiah 15:18; Micah 1:9; Job 34:6. Gesenius (Lex) calls this derivation in question; but if it be the correct idea, then the word used here originally referred to man as feeble, and as liable to sickness and calamity. I see no reason to doubt that the common idea is correct, and that it refers to man as weak and feeble. The other word used here to denote man (גבר geber ) is given to him on account of his strength. The two words, therefore, embrace man whether considered as feeble or strong - and the idea is, that none of the race could be more pure than God.

Be more just than God - Some expositors have supposed that the sense of this expression in the Hebrew is, “Can man be pure before God, or in the sight of God?” They allege that it could not have been made a question whether man could be more pure than God, or more just than his Maker. Such is the view presented of the passage by Rosenmuller, Good, Noyes, and Umbreit:“Shall mortal man be just before God?Shall man be pure before his Maker?”In support of this view, and this use of the Hebrew preposition ,( m) מ Rosenmuller appeals to Jeremiah 51:5; Numbers 32:29; Ezekiel 34:18. This, however, is not wholly satisfactory. The more literal translation is that which occurs in the common version, and this accords with the Vulgate and the Chaldee. If so understood, it is designed to repress and reprove the pride of men, which arraigns the equity of the divine government, and which seems to be wiser and better than God. Thus, understood, it would be a pertinent reproof of Job, who in his complaint Job 3 had seemed to be wiser than God. He had impliedly charged him with injustice and lack of goodness. All people who complain against God, and who arraign the equity and goodness of the divine dispensations, claim to be wiser and better than he is. They would have ordered flyings more wisely, and in a better manner. They would have kept the world from the disorders and sins which actually exist, and would have made it pure and happy. How pertinent, therefore, was it to ask whether man could be more pure or just than his Maker! And how pertinent was the solemn question propounded in the hearing of Eliphaz by the celestial messenger - a question that seems to have been originally proposed in view of the complaints and murmurs of a self-confident race!

Verse 18Behold, he put no trust in his servants - These are evidently the words of the oracle that appeared to Eliphaz; see Schultens, in loc. The word servants here refers to angels; and the idea is, that God was so pure that he did not confide even in the exalted holiness of angels - meaning that their holiness was infinitely inferior to his. The design is to state that God had the highest possible holiness, such as to render the holiness of all others, no matter how exalted, as nothing - as all lesser lights are as nothing before the glory of the sun. The Chaldee renders this, “Lo, in his servants, the prophets, he does not confide;” but the more correct reference is undoubtedly to the angels.

And his angels he charged with folly - Margin, Or,” Nor in his angels, in whom he put light.” The different rendering in the text and in the margin, has arisen from the supposed ambiguity of the word employed here - תהלה toholah It is a word which occurs nowhere else, and hence, it is difficult to determine its true signification. Walton renders it, gloriatio glorying; Jerome, pravitas, wickedness; the Septuagint, σκολιον skolion fault, blemish; Dr. Good. default, or defection; Noyes, frailty. Gesenius says that the word is derived from הלל halal (No. 4), to be foolish. So also Kimchi explains it. According to this, the idea is that of foolishness - that is, they are far inferior to God in wisdom; or, as the word folly in the Scriptures is often synonymous with sin, it might mean that their purity was so far inferior to his as to appear like impurity and sin. The essential idea is, that even the holiness of angels was not to be compared with God. It is not that they were polluted and unholy, for, in their measure, they are perfect; but it is that their holiness was as nothing compared with the infinite perfection of God. It is to be remembered that a part of the angels had sinned, and they had shown that their integrity was not to be confided in; and whatever might be the holiness of a creature, it was possible to conceive that he might sin. But no such idea could for a moment enter the mind in regard to God. The object of this whole argument is to show, that if confidence could not be reposed in the angels, and if all their holiness was as nothing before God, little confidence could be placed in man; and that it was presumption for him to sit in judgment on the equity of the divine dealings.

Verse 19How much less - ,This particle has the general sense of addition .( aph' אף) accession, especially of something more important;” yea more, besides, even.” Gesenius. The meaning here is, “how much more true is this of man!” He puts no confidence in his angels; he charges them with frailty; how much more strikingly true must this be of man! It is not merely, as our common translation would seem to imply, that he put much less confidence in man than in angels; it is, that all he had said must be more strikingly true of man, who dwelt in so frail and humble a habitation.In them that dwell in houses of clay - In man. The phrase “houses of clay” refers to the body made of dust. The sense is, that man, from the fact that he dwells in such a tabernacle, is far inferior to the pure spirits that surround the throne of God, and much more liable to sin. The body is represented as a

temporary tent, tabernacle, or dwelling for the soul. That dwelling is soon to be taken down, and its tenant, the soul, to be removed to other abodes. So Paul 2 Corinthians 5:1 speaks of the body as η επιγειος ημων οικια του σκηνους he epigeios hemon oikia tou skenous - “our earthly house of this tabernacle.” So Plato speaks of it as γηινον σκηνος geinon skenos - an earthly tent; and so Aristophanes (Av. 587), among other contemptuous expressions applied to people, calls them πλασματα πηλου plasmata pelou “vessels of clay.” The idea in the verse before us is beautiful, and as affecting as it is beautiful. A house of clay was little fitted to bear the extremes of heat and cold, of storm and ( chomer חמר)sunshine, of rain, and frost, and snow, and would soon crumble and decay. It must be a frail and temporary dwelling. It could not endure the changes of the seasons and the lapse of years like a dwelling of granite or marble. So with our bodies. They can bear little. They are frail, infirm, and feeble. They are easily prostrated, and soon fall back to their native dust. How can they who dwelt in such edifices, be in any way compared with the Infinite and Eternal God?Whose foundation is in the dust - A house to be firm and secure should be founded on a rock; see Matthew 7:25. The figure is kept up here of comparing man with a house; and as a house that is built on the sand or the dust may be easily washed away (compare Matthew 7:26-27), and could not be confided in, so it was with man. He was like such a dwelling; and no more confidence could be reposed in him than in such a house.Which are crushed - They are broken in pieces, trampled on, destroyed (דכא daka' ), by the most insignificant objects.Before the moth - See Isaiah 50:9, note; Isaiah 51:8, note. The word moth (עש ‛ash ), Greek σης ses Vulgate, tinea, denotes properly an insect which flies by night, and particularly that which attaches itself to woolen cloth and consumes it. It is possible, however, that the word here denotes the moth-worm. This “moth-worm is one state of the creature. which first is inclosed in an egg, and thence issues in the form of a worm; after a time, it quits the form of a worm, to assume that of the complete state of the insect, or the moth.” Calmet. The comparison here, therefore, is not that of a moth flying against a house to overset it, nor of the moth consuming man as it does a garment, but it is that of a feeble worm that preys upon man and destroys him; and the idea is, that the most feeble of all objects may crush him. The following remarks from Niebuhr (Reisebeschreibung von Arabien, S. 133), will serve to illustrate this passage, and show that so feeble a thing as a worm may destroy human life. “There is in Yemen, in India, and on

the coasts of the South Sea, a common sickness caused by the Guinea, or nerve-worm, known to European physicians by the name of vena Medinensis. It is supposed in Yemen that this worm is ingested from the bad water which the inhabitants of those countries are under a necessity of using. Many of the Arabians on this account take the precaution to strain the water which they drink. If anyone has by accident swallowed an egg of this worm, no trace of it is to be seen until it appears on the skin; and the first indication of it there, is the irritation which is caused. On our physician, a few days before his death, five of these worms made their appearance, although we had been more than five months absent from Arabia. On the island of Charedsch, I saw a French officer, whose name was Le Page, who after a long and arduous journey, which he had made on foot, from Pondicherry to Surat, through the heart of India, found the traces of such a worm in him, which he endeavored to extract from his body.He believed that be had swallowed it when drinking the waters of Mahratta. The worm is not dangerous, if it can be drawn from the body without being broken. The Orientals are accustomed, as soon as the worm makes its appearance through the skin, to wind it up on a piece of straw, or of dry wood. It is finer than a thread, and is from two to three feet in length. The winding up of the worm frequently occupies a week; and no further inconvenience is experienced, than the care which is requisite not to break it. If, however, it is broken, it draws itself back into the body, and then becomes dangerous. Lameness, gangrene, or the loss of life itself is the result.” See the notes at Isaiah referred to above. The comparison of man with a worm, or an insect, on account of his feebleness and shortness of life, is common in the sacred writings, and in the Classics. The following passage from Pindar, quoted by Schultens, hints at the same idea:Επαμεροι, τι δε τις; τι δ ου τις;Σκιας οναρ ανθρωποι. Epameroi ti de tis ti d' ou tis Skias onar anthropoi of a day! What is anyone? What is he not? Men are the dream of a shadow!” - The idea in the passage before us is, that people are exceedingly frail, and that in such creatures no confidence can be placed. How should such a creature, therefore, presume to arraign the wisdom and equity of the divine dealings? How can he be more just or wise than God?

Verse 20

They are destroyed from morning to evening - Margin, “beaten in pieces.” This is nearer to the Hebrew. The phrase “from morning to evening” means between the morning and the evening; that is, they live scarcely a single day; see the notes at Isaiah 38:12. The idea is, not the continuance of the work of destruction from morning to evening; but that man‘s life is excecdingly short, so short that he scarce seems to live from morning to night. What a beautiful expression, and how true! How little qualified is such a being to sit in judgment on the doings of the Most High!They perish forever - Without being restored to life. They pass away, and nothing is ever seen of them again!Without any regarding it - Without its being noticed. How strikingly true is this! What a narrow circle is affected by the death of a man, and how soon does even that circle cease to be affected! A few relatives and friends feel it and weep over the loss; but the mass of men are unconcerned. It is like taking a grain of sand from the sea-shore, or a drop of water from the ocean. There is indeed one less, but the place is soon supplied, and the ocean rolls on its tumultuous billows as though none had been taken away. So with human life. The affairs of people will roll on; the world will be as busy, and active, and thoughtless as though we had not been; and soon, O how painfully soon to human pride, will our names be forgotten! The circle of friends will cease to weep, and then cease to remember us. The last memorial that we lived, will be gone. The house that we built, the bed on which we slept, the counting-room that we occupied, the monuments that we raised, the books that we made, the stone that we directed to be placed over our graves, will all be gone; and the last memento that we ever lived, will have faded away! How vain is man! How vain is pride! How foolish is ambition! How important the announcement that there is another world, where we may live on forever!

Verse 21Doth not their excellency … - Dr. Good renders this, “Their fluttering round is over with them,” by a very forced construction of the passage. Translators and expositors have been very much divided in opinion as to its meaning; but the sense seems to be, that whatever is excellent in people is torn away or removed. Their excellence does not keep them from death, and they are taken off before they are truly wise. The word “excellency” here refers not only to moral excellency or virtue, but everything in which they excel others. Whatever there is

in them of strength, or virtue, or influence, is removed. The word used here יתר yether means, literally, something hanging over or redundant (from יתר yathar to hang over, be redundant, or to remain), and hence, it means abundance or remainder, and then that which exceeds or abounds. It is thus applied to any distinguished virtue or excellency, as that which exceeds the ordinary limits or bounds. Men perish; and however eminent they may have been, they are soon cut off, and vanish away. The object here is to show how weak, and frail, and unworthy of confidence are people even in their most elevated condition.They die, even without wisdom - That is, before they become truly wise. The object is to show, that people are so short-lived compared with angels, that they have no opportunity to become distinguished for wisdom. Their days are few; and however careful may be their observation, before they have had time to become truly wise they are hurried away. They are, therefore, wholly disqualified to sit in judgment on the doings of God, and to arraign, as Job had done, the divine wisdom.Here closes the oracle which was addressed to Eliphaz. It is a description of unrivaled sublimity. In the sentiments that were addressed to Eliphaz, there is nothing that is contradictory to the other communications which God has made to people, or to what is taught by reason. Every reader of this passage must feel that the thoughts are singularly sublime, and that they are such as are adapted to make a deep impression on the mind. The error in Eliphaz consisted in the application which he makes of them to Job, and in the inference which he draws, that he must have been a hypocrite. This inference is drawn in the following chapter. As the oracle stands here, it is pertinent to the argument which Eliphaz had commenced, and just fitted to furnish a reproof to Job for the irreverent manner in which he had spoken, and the complaints which he had brought Job 3 against the dealings of God. Let us learn from the oracle:(1) That man cannot be more just than God; and let this be an abiding principle of our lives;(2) Not to complain at his dispensations, but to confide in his superior wisdom and goodness;(3) That our opportunities of observation, and our rank in existence, are as nothing compared with those of the angels, who are yet so inferior to God as to be charged with folly;(4) That our foundation is in the dust, and that the most insignificant object may sweep us away; and

(5) That in these circumstances humility becomes us.Our proper situation is in the dust; and whatever calamities may befall us, we should confide in God, and feel that he is qualified to direct our affairs, and the affairs of the universe.

05 Chapter 5 Verse 1Call now - The expressions used here, as Noyes has well observed, seem to be derived from the law, where the word “call” denotes the language of the complainant, and answer that of the defendant. According to this, the meaning of the words “call now” is, in jus voca: that is, call the Deity to account, or bring an action against him: or more properly, enter into an argument or litigation, as before a tribunal; see the notes at Isaiah 41:1, where similar language occurs.If there be any that will answer thee - If there is anyone who will respond to thee in such a trial. Noyes renders this, “See if He will answer thee;” that is, “See if the Deity will condescend to enter into a judicial conroversy with thee, and give an account of his dealings toward thee.” Dr. Good renders it, “Which of these can come forward to thee; that is, “Which of these weakly, ephemeral, perishing insects - which of these nothings can render thee any assistance?” The meaning is probably, “Go to trial, if you can find any respondent; if there is any one willing to engage in such a debate; and let the matter be fairly adjudicated and determined. Let an argument be entered into before a competent tribunal, and the considerations pro and con be urged on the point now under consideration.” The desire of Eliphaz was, that there should be a fair investigation, where all that could be said on one side or the other of the question would be urged, and where there would be a decision of the important point in dispute. He evidently felt that Job would be foiled in the argument before whomsoever it should be conducted, and whoever might take up the opposite side; and hence, he says that he could get no one of “the saints” to assist him in the argument. In the expression, “if there be any that will answer thee,” he may mean to intimate that he would find no one who would be willing even to go into an investigation of the subject. The case was so plain, the views of Job were so obviously wrong, the arguments for the opinion of Eliphaz were so obvious, that he doubted whether anyone could be found who would be willing to make it the occasion of a set and formal trial, as if there could be any doubt about it.

And to which of the saints wilt thou turn? - Margin, as in Hebrew “look.” That is, to which of them wilt thou look to be an advocate for such sentiments, or which of them would be willing to go into an argument on so plain a subject? Grotins supposes that Eliphaz, having boasted that he had produced a divine revelation in his favor Job 4, now calls upon Job to produce, if he can, something of the same kind in his defense, or to see if there were any of the heavenly spirits who would give a similar revelation in his favor. The word here rendered “saints” means properly those who are sanctified or holy; and it may ( qodeshıym קדשים)be either applied to holy men, or to angels. It is generally supposed that it here refers to angels. So Schultens, Rosenmuller, Noyes, Good, and others, understand it. The word is often used in this sense in the Scriptures. So the Septuagint understands it here - η ειτινα αγγελων αγιων οψη e eitina angelon hagion opse Such is probably its meaning; and the sense of the passage is, “Call now upon anyone, and you will find none willing to be the advocate of such sentiments as you have urged. No holy beings - human beings or angels - would defend them.” By this, probably, Eliphaz designed to show Job that he differed from all holy being, and that his views were not those of a truly pious man. If he could find no one, either among holy angels or pious men, to be the advocate of his opinions, it followed that he must be in error.

Verse 2For wrath killeth the foolish man - That is, the wrath of God. The word foolish here is used as synonymous with wicked, because wickedness is supreme folly. The general proposition here is, that the wicked are cut off, and that they are overtaken with heavy calamities in this life. In proof of this, Eliphaz appeals in the following verses to his own observation: The implied inference is, that Job, having had all his possessions taken away, and having been overwhelmed with unspeakably great personal calamities, was to be regarded as having been a great sinner. Some suppose, however, that the word “wrath” here relates to the indignation or the repining of the individual himself, and that the reference is to the fact that such wrath or repining preys upon the spirit, and draws down the divine vengeance. This is the view of Schultens, and of Noyes. But it seems more probable that Eliphaz means to state the proposition, that the wrath of God burns against the wicked, and that the following verses are an illustration of this sentiment, derived from his own observation.

And envy - Margin, “indignation.” Jerome, invidia, envy. Septuagint ζηλος zelos Castellio, severitas ac vehementia. The Hebrew word qın'ah means קנאה jealousy, envy, ardor, zeal. It may be applied to any strong affection of the mind; any fervent, glowing, and burning emotion. Gesenius supposes it means here envy, as excited by the prosperity of others. To me it seems that the connection requires us to understand it of wrath, or indignation, as in Deuteronomy 29:20; Psalm 79:5. As applied to God, it often means his jealousy, or his anger, when the affections of people are placed on other objects than himself; Numbers 25:11; Zephaniah 1:18, et al.Slayeth the silly one - Good and Noyes render this, “the weak man.” Jerome, parvulum, the little one. The Septuagint, πεπλανημενον peplanemenon the erring. Walton, ardelionem, the busy-body. The Hebrew word פתה poteh is from pathah to open, go expand; and hence, the participleis applied to one who פתהopens his lips, or whose mouth is open; that is, a garrulous person, Proverbs 20:19; and also to one who is open-hearted, frank, ingenuous, unsuspicious; and hence, one who is easily influenced by others, or whose heart may be easily enticed. Thus, it comes to mean one who is simple and foolish. In this sense it is used here, to denote one who is so simple and foolish as to be drawn aside by weak arguments and unfounded opinions. I have no doubt that Eliphaz meant, by insinuation, to apply this to Job, as being a weak-minded man, for having allowed the views which he entertained to make such an impression on his mind, and for having expressed himself as he had done. The proposition is general; but it would be easy to undertand how he intended it to be applied.

Verse 3I have seen the foolish - The wicked. To confirm the sentiment which he had just advanced, Eliphaz appeals to his own observation, and says that though the wicked for a time seem to be prosperous, yet he had observed that they were soon overtaken with calamity and cut down. He evidently means that prosperity was no evidence of the divine favor; but that when it had continued for a little time, and was then withdrawn, it was proof that the man who had been prospered was at heart a wicked man. It was easy to understated that he meant that this should be applied to Job, who, though he had been favored with temporary prosperity, was now revealed to be at heart a wicked man. The sentiment here advanced by Eliphaz, as the result of his observation, strikingly accords with the observation of David, as expressed in Psalm 23:1-6:

“I have seen the wicked in great power,And spreading himself like a green bay-tree;Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not:Yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.”Psalm 23:1-6:35-36.Taking root - This figure, to denote prosperous and rapid growth, is often used in the Scriptures. Thus, in Psalm 1:3:“And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,That bringeth forth his fruit in his season.”So Isaiah 27:6:“Those that come out of Jacob shall he cause to take root;Israel shall blossom and bud,And shall fill the face of the world with fruit.”So Psalm 80:9-10:“Thou preparedst room before it,And didst cause it to take deep root,And it filled the land.The hills were covered with the shadow of it,And the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars.”But suddenly - Meaning either that calamity came upon him suddenly - as it had upon Job, that is, without any apparent preparation, or that; calamity came before a great while, that is, that this prosperity did not continue. Probably there is an implied reference hereto the case of Job, meaning that he had known just such instances before; and as the case of Job accorded with what he had before seen, he hastened to the conclusion that Job must have been a wicked man.I cursed his habitation - I had occasion to regard it as accursed; that is, I witnessed the downfall of his fortunes, and pronounced his habitation accursed. I saw that God regarded it as such, and that he had suddenly punished him. This accords with the observation of David, referred to above.

Verse 4His children are far from safety - That is, this is soon manifest by their being cut off or subjected to calamity. The object of Eliphaz is, to state the result of his own observation, and to show how calamity overtook the wicked though they even prospered for a time. He begins with that which a man would feel most - the calamity which comes upon his children, and says that God would punish him in

them. Every word of this would go to the heart of Job; for he could not but feel that it was aimed at him, and that the design was to prove that the calamities that had come upon his children were a proof of his own wickedness and of the divine displeasure. It is remarkable that Job listens to this with the utmost patience. There is no interruption of the speaker; no breaking in upon the argument of his friend; no mark of uneasiness. Oriental politeness required that a speaker should be heard attentively through whatever he might say. See the Introduction, Section 7. Cutting and severe, therefore, as this strain of remark must have been, the sufferer sat meekly and heard it all, and waited for the appropriate time when an answer might be returned.And they are crushed in the gate - The gate of a city in ancient times was the chief place of concourse, and was the place where public business was usually transacted, and where courts of justice were held; see Genesis 23:10; Deuteronomy 21:19; Deuteronomy 25:6-7; Rth 4:1 ff: Psalm 127:5; Proverbs 22:22. The Greeks also held their courts in some public place of business. Hence, the forum, αγορα agora was also a place for fairs. See Jahn‘s Archaeology, section 247. Some suppose that the meaning here is, that they were oppressed and trodden down by the concourse in the gate. But the more probable meaning is, that they found no one to advocate their cause; that they were subject to oppression and injustice in judicial decisions, and then when their parent was dead, no one would stand up to vindicate them from respect to his memory. The idea is, that though there might be temporary prosperity, yet that it would not be long before heavy calamities would come upon the children of the wicked.

Verse 5Whose harvest the hungry eateth up - That is, they are not permitted to enjoy the avails of their own labor. The harvest field is subject to the depredations of others, who contrive to possess themselves of it, and to consume it.And taketh it even out of the thorns - Or, he seizes it to the very thorns. That is, the famished robber seizes the whole of the harvest. He takes it all away, even to the thistles, and chaff, and cockle, and whatever impure substances there may be growing with the grain. He does not wait to separate the grain from the other substances, but consumes it all. He spares nothing.

And the robber swalloweth up their substance - Noyes renders this, as Gesenius proposes to do, “and a snare gapeth after his substance;” Dr. Good, “and rigidly swoopeth up their substance.” Rosenmuller much better:Cujusquo facultates oxhauriebant sitibundi, copying exactly the version of Castellio. The Vulgate in a similar manner, Et bibent sitientes divitias ejus - And the thirsty drink up his wealth. The Septuagint, εκσιφωνισθειη αυτων η ισχυς eksifonisthein auton he ischus - “should their power be absorbed.” The true sense, as I conceive, is, “the thirsty gasp, or pant, after their wealth;” that is, they consume it. The word rendered in our common version “the robber צמים tsammıym is, according to the ancient versions, the same as צמאים tsame'ıym the thirsty, and this sense the parallelism certainly requires. So obvious is this, that it is better to suppose a slight error in the Hebrew text, than to give it the signification of a snare,” as Noyes does, and as Gesenius (Lexicon) proposes. The word rendered “swalloweth up” (שאף sha'aph ) means, properly, to breathe hard, to pant, to blow; and then to yawn after, to desire, to absorb; and the sense here is, that the thirsty consume their property. The whole figure is taken from robbers and freebooters; and I have no doubt that Eliphaz meant impliedly to allude to the ease of Job, and to say that he had known just such cases, where, though there was great temporary prosperity, yet before long the children of the man who was prospered, and who professed to be pious, but was not, were crushed, and his property taken away by robbers. It was this similarity of the case of Job to the facts which he had observed, that staggered him so much in regard to his cbaracter.

Verse 6Although affliction cometh not forth of the dust - Margin, “or iniquity.” The marginal reading here has been inserted from the different meanings attached to the Hebrew word. That word (און 'aven ) properly means nothingness, or vanity; then nothingness as to worth, unworthiness, wickedness, iniquity; and then the consequences of iniquity - adversity, calamity, affliction; Psalm 55:4; Proverbs 22:8; Psalm 90:10; Job 15:35. The Septuagint renders it κοπος kopos “labor,” or “trouble.” The Vulgate, Nihil in terra, sine causa - “there is nothing on the earth without a cause.” The general sense is plain. It is, that afflictions are not to be ascribed to chance, or that they are not without intelligent design. They do not come up like thistles, brambles, and thorns, from the unconscious earth. They have a cause. They are under the direction of God. The object of Eliphaz in the

statement is, to show to Job that it was improper to complain, and that he should commit his cause to a God of infinite power and wisdom; Job 5:8 ff. Afflictions, Eliphaz says, could not be avoided. Man was born unto them. He ought to expect them, and when they come, they should be submitted to as ordered by an intelligent, wise, and good Being. This is one true ground of consolation in afflictions. They do not come from the unconscious earth: they do not spring up of themselves. Though it is true that man is born to them, and must expect them, yet it is also true that they are ordered in infinite wisdom, and that they always have a design.Neither doth trouble spring out of the ground - The Septuagint renders this, “Nor will affliction spring up from the mountains.”

Verse 7Yet man is born unto trouble - All this is connected with the sentiment in Job 5:8 ff. The meaning is, that “since afflictions are ordered by an intelligent Being, and since man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward, therefore it is wise to commit our cause to God, and not to complain against him.” Margin, or labor. The word here (עמל ‛amal ) rather means trouble, or affliction, than labor. The sense is, that as certainly as man is born, so sure is it that he will have trouble. It follows from the condition of our being, as certainly as that unconscious objects will follow the laws of their nature - that sparks will ascend. This seems to have a proverbial cast, and was doubtless regarded as a sentiment universally true. It is as true now as it was then; for it is still the great law of our being, that trouble as certainly comes sooner or later, as that material objects obey the laws of nature which God has impressed on them.As the sparks fly upward - The Hebrew expression here is very beautiful - “as

בני רשף beney reshep - the sons of flame fly.” The word used (רשף reshep ) means flame, lightning; the sons, or children of the flame, are that which it produces; that is, sparks. Gesenius strangely renders it, “sons of the lightning; that is, birds of prey which fly as swift as the lightning.” So Dr. Good, “As the bird-tribes are made to fly upwards.” So Umbreit renders it, Gleichwie die Brut des Raubgeflugels sich hoch in Fluge hebt - “as a flock of birds of prey elevate themselves on the wing.” Noyes adopts the construction of Gesenius; partly on the principle that man would be more likely to be compared to birds, living creatures, than to sparks. There is considerable variety in the interpretation of the passage. The Septuagint renders it, νεοσσοι δε γυπος neossoi de gupos - the

young of the vulture. The Chaldee, בני מזיקי beney mezeyqey - “the sons of demons.” Syriac “Sons of birds.” Jerome, “Man is born to labor, and the bird to flight” - et avis ad volatum. Schultens renders it, “glittering javelins,” and Arius Montanus, “sons of the live coal.” It seems to me that our common version has expressed the true meaning. But the idea is not essentially varied whichever interpretation is adopted. It is, that as sparks ascend, or as birds fly upward - following the laws of their being - so is trouble the lot of man. It certainly comes; and comes under the direction of a Being who has fixed the laws of the inferior creation. It would be wise for man, therefore, to resign himself to God in the times when those troubles come. He should not sit down and complain at this condition of things, but should submit to it as the law of his being, and should have sufficient confidence in God to believe that he orders it aright.

Verse 8I would seek unto God - Our translators have omitted here the adversative particle אולם 'ulam but, yet, nevertheless, and have thus marred the connection. The meaning of Eliphaz, I take to be, “that since affliction is ordered by an intelligent Being, and does not spring out of the ground, therefore he would commit his cause to God, and look to him.” Jerome has well expressed it, Quam ob rem ego deprecabor Dominum. Some have understood this as meaning that Eliphaz himself was in the habit of committing his cause to God, and that he exhorted Job to imitate his example. But the correct sense is that which regards it as counsel given to Job to look to God because afflictions are the result of intelligent design, and because God had shown himself to be worthy of the confidence of people. The latter point Eliphaz proceeds to argue in the following verses.

Verse 9Which doeth great things - The object of this is, to show why Job should commit his cause to God. The reason suggested is, that he had showed himself qualified to govern the world by the great and wonderful acts which he performed. Eliphaz, therefore, proceeds to expatiate on what God had done, and thus states the ancient belief in regard to his sovereignty over the world. This strain of reasoning continues to the end of the chapter. There is great beauty and force in it; and though we have, through the revelations of the New Testament, some more enlarged views of the government of God and of the design of

affliction, yet perhaps there can be found nowhere a more beautiful argument to lead people to put confidence in God. The reason here stated is, that God does “great things,” and, therefore, we should commit ourselves to him. His works are vast and boundless; they are such as to impress the mind with a sense of his own immensity; and in such a being we should confide rather than in a feeble creature‘s arm. Who, when he contemplates the vast universe which God has made, and surveys the starry world under the light of the modern astronomy, can doubt that God does “great things,” and that the interests which we commit to him are safe?And unsearchable - Margin, “There is no search.” Septuagint ανεξιχνιαστα anecichniasta ) - “whose footsteps cannot be traced.” The Hebrew word חקר cheqer means searching out or examining; and the idea is here, that it is impossible fully to search out and comprehend what God does. See Job 11:7. This is stated as a reason why we should look to him. We should expect things in his administration which we cannot understand. The argument of Eliphaz seems to be, that it was a matter of indisputable fact that there are many things in the government of God which are above our comprehension; and when he afflicts us, we should feel that this is a part of the doings of the incomprehensible God. Such mysterious dealings are to be expected, and they should not be allowed for a moment to shake our confidence in him.Marvellous things - Things that are wonderful, and are fitted to excite amazement. See the notes at Isaiah 9:6.Without number - Margin, “Until there be no number.” The sense is, that it is impossible to estimate the number of those things in the universe over which he presides which are adapted to excite admiration. If the view of the universe entertained in the time of Eliphaz was fitted to overwhelm the mind by its vastness and by the number of the objects which were created, this astonishment is much greater now that the telescope has disclosed the wonders of the heavens above to man, and the microscope the not less amazing wonders of the world beneath him. Leuwenhoeck, by the aid of the microscope, discovered, he supposed, a thousand million animalculae, whose united bulk did not exceed the size of a grain of sand - all of whom are distinct formations, with all the array of functions necessary to life. Of the number also of the larger works of God, much interesting and overpowering truth is presented by the science of modern astronomy.As an instance of this, we may refer to the Milky Way, or the whitish, irregular

zone, that goes round the whole heavens, and that can be seen at any season of the year, but particularly in the months of August, September, and November. “This vast portion of the heavens is found to consist wholly of stars, crowded into immense clusters. On first presenting a telescope of considerable power to this splendid zone, we are lost in astonishment at the number, the variety, and the beautiful configuration of the stars of which it is composed. In certain parts of it, every slight motion of the telescope presents now groups and new configurations; and the new and wondrous scene is continued over a space of many degrees in succession. In several fields of view, occupying a space of not more than twice the breadth of the moon, you perceive more of these twinkling luminaries, than all the stars visible to the naked eye throughout the whole canopy of heaven. The late Sir W. Herschel, in passing his telescope along a space of this zone fifteen degrees long, and two broad, descried at least fifty thousand stars, large enough to be distinctly counted; besides which, he suspected twice as many more, which could be seen only now and then by faint glimpses for lack of sufficient light; that is, fifty times more than the acutest eye can discern in the whole heavens during the clearest night; and the space which they occupy is only the one thousand three hundred and seventy-fifth part of the visible canopy of the sky.On another occasion this astronomer perceived nearly six hundred stars in one field of view of his telescope; so that in the space of a quarter of an hour, one hundred and sixteen thousand stars passed in review before him. Now, were we to suppose every part of this zone equally filled with stars as the places now alluded to, there would be found in the Milky Way alone, no less than twenty million, one hundred and ninety thousand stars. In regard to the distance of some of these stars, it has been ascertained that some of the more remote are not less than five hundred times the distance of the nearest fixed star, or nearly two thousand billion of miles; a distance so great, that light, which flies at the rate of twelve million miles every minute, would require one thousand six hundred and forty years before it could traverse this mighty interval! The Milky Way is now, with good reason, considered to be the cluster of stars in which our sun is situated; and all the stars visible to the naked eye are only a few scattered orbs near the extremity of this cluster.Yet there is reason also to believe that the Milky Way, of which our system forms a part, is no mere than a single nebula, of which several thousands have already been discovered, which compose the universe; and that it bears no more

proportion to the whole siderial heavens than a small dusky speck which our telescopes enable us to descry in the heavens. Three thousand nebulae have already been discovered. Suppose the number of stars in the whole Milky Way to be no more than ten million, and that each of the nebulae, at an average, contains the same number; supposing further, that only two thousand of the three thousand nebulae are resolvable into stars, and that the other thousand are masses of a shining fluid, not yet condensed by the Almighty into luminous globes, the number of stars or suns comprehended in that portion of the firmament which is within the reach of our telescopes, is twenty thousand million.” Yet all this may be as nothing compared with the parts of the universe which we are unable to discover. See in the Christian Keepsake for 1840, an article by Thomas Dick, entitled” An Idea of the Universe;” compare the notes at Job 9:9.Supplementary Note to Job 5:9The labors of astronomers, aided by instruments of remarkable accuracy and power, and by improved methods of observation, are ever adding to our knowledge of the “wonderful things without number” which render the mechanism of the heavens such a spectacle of sublimity. Among the most interesting and beautiful of the celestial phenomena are the star clusters and nebulae. A small number of the star-clusters are bright enough to be distinguished by the naked eye, to which they appear as a faint cloudlike patch of light; but it is only when the telescope is used that their real character becomes known, and they are then seen to be vast conglomerations of stars-connected systems of suns. The greater number are of a rounded and apparently globular form, the stars being densely crowded together in the center; though others are very irregular in shape. Those of a globular form often consist of an astonishingly great number of stars. “Herschel has calculated that many clusters contain 5,000 collected in a space, the apparent dimensions of which are scarcely the tenth part of the surface of the lunar disk.” “The beautiful cluster in Aquarius, which Sir John Herschel‘s drawing exhibits as fine luminous dust, when examined through the Earl of Rosse‘s powerful reflector, appeared like a magnificent globular cluster, entirely separated into stars. But the most beautiful specimen of this kind is without doubt the splendid cluster in Toucan, quite visible to the naked eye, in the vicinity of the smaller Magellanic cloud, in a region of the southern sky entirely void of stars. The condensation at the center of this cluster is extremely decided; there are three perfectly distinct gradations, and the orange red color of the

central agglomeration contrasts wonderfully with the white light of the concentric envelopes.”It was formerly supposed by many that all nebulae were resolvable into star-clusters, and that it was only the want of instruments of sufficient power that prevented this from being done; but spectrum analysis has now demonstrated what was before conjectured, that although there may be many nebulae that would appear as distinct stars if more powerful instruments were brought to bear upon them, there are others of a different nature, consisting, namely, of glowing masses of gaseous matter. The forms assumed by nebulae are extremely varied, and some of them very remarkable. The round or globular form is very common; others resemble rings, circular or oval; others are conical or fanshaped, resembling the tail of a comet; some consist of spirals, radiating from a common nucleus; while many assume forms so irregular and bizarre as to be difficult to describe. The names given to some of them, such as the Crab Nebula, the Dumb-bell Nebula, the Fish-mouth Nebula (Nebula in Orion, see Plate), sufficiently intimate the striking aspects that they sometimes present.Many of the nebulae, in which the separate stars could not previously be distinguished, have been resolved by Lord Rosse‘s great telescope; while others as seen by it have very different shapes from what less powerful instruments gave them. This is the case with the Dumb-bell Nebula in particular, its form as described and figured by Sir John Herschel being considerably different from that in our engraving, which shows its aspect under Lord Rosse‘s telescope. “Two luminous masses symmetrically placed and bound together by a rather short neck, the whole surrounded with a light nebulous envelope of oval form, gave it a very marked appearance of regularity. This aspect was, however, modified by Lord Rosse‘s telescope of three feet aperture, and the nebulous masses showed a decided tendency to resolvability. Later still, with the six-feet telescope, numerous stars were observed standing out, however, on a nebulous ground. The general aspect retains its primitive shape, less regular, but striking nevertheless. “With regard to the nebula in Orion we extract the following passage from Guillemin‘s “The Heavens,” edited by John N. Lockyer, F. R. A.S., the work from which the above passages are taken: - “Sir John Herschel compares the brightest portion to the head of a monstrous animal, the mouth of which is open, and the nose of which is in the form of a trunk. Hence, its name, the Fish-mouth Nebula. It is at the edge of the opening, in a space free from nebula that the four brightest of the components of θ (th ) (a sevenfold star, that

is, a connected system of seven stars which appear to the naked eye a single luminous point) are to be found; around, but principally above the trapezium formed by these four stars is a luminous region, with a mottled appearance, which Lord Rosse and Bond have partly resolved. This region is remarkable on account, not only of the brilliancy of its lights, but also of the numerous centers where this light is condensed, and each of which appears to form a stellar cluster.The rectangular form of the whole is also worthy of attention. The nebulous masses surrounding it, the light of which is much fainter than that of the central region, are lost gradually; according to Bond they assume a spiral form as indicated in the drawing executed by that astronomer” (from which our engraving is taken). Writing soon after Lord Rosse‘s observation had resolved the nebula of Orion, Dr. Nichol says: - “The great cluster in Hercules has long dazzled the heart with its splendors; but we have learned now, that among circular and compact galaxies, a class to which the nebulous stars belong, there are multitudes which infinitely surpass it; nay, that schemes of being rise above it, sun becoming nearer to sun, until their skies must be one blaze of light, a throng of burning activities! But far aloft stands Orion, the pre-eminent glory and wonder of the starry universe! - It would seem almost that if all other clusters, hitherto gauged, were collected and compressed into one, they would not surpass this mighty group, in which every wisp, every wrinkle, is a sand heap of stars. There are cases in which, though imagination has quailed, reason may still adventure inquiry, and prolong its speculations; but at times we are brought to a limit across which no human faculty has the strength to penetrate, and where, as if at the very footstool of the secret throne, we can only bend our heads, and silently adore!” “These facts furnish a most impressive commentary upon the words of Eliphaz - which doeth great things and unsearchable, “marvelous things until there be no number” (margin) - and become the more significant from their connection with the constellation of orion, which is more than once mentioned in the book of Job” Job 9:9; Job 38:31.

Verse 10Who giveth rain upon the earth - In the previous verse, Eliphaz had said, in general, that God did wonderful things - things which are fitted to lead us to put our trust in him. In this and the succeeding verses, he descends to particulars, and specifies those things which show that God is worthy to be confided in. This enunciation continues to Job 5:16, and the general scope is, that the agency of

God is seen everywhere; and that his providential dealings are adapted to impress man with elevated ideas of his justice and goodness. Eliphaz begins with the rain, and says that the fact that God sends it upon the earth was fitted to lead man to confide in him. He means, that while the sun, and moon, and seasons have stated times, and are governed by settled laws, the rain seems to be sent directly by God, and is imparted at such times as are best. It is wholly under his control, and furnishes a constant evidence of his benevolence. Without it, every vegetable would dry up, and every animal on the earth would soon die. The word earth here refers probably to the cultivated part of the earth - the fields that are under tillage. Thus, Eichhorn renders it, Angebauten Feldern. On the interest which the phenomena of rain excited among the ancient sages of Idumea, and the laws by which it is produced, see Job 37:6, note; Job 37:15-16, note; Job 38:22-28, note.And sendeth waters - That is, showers.Upon the fields - Margin, “out-places.” Hebrew - chutsot חוצות out of doors, outside, abroad, meaning the fields out of cities and towns. Eichhorn renders it, “the pastures,” auf Triften. The meaning is, that the whole country is watered; and the fact that God gives rain in this manner, is a reason why we should put confidence in him. It shows that he is a benevolent Being, since it contributes so essentially to human life and happiness, and since no other being but God can cause it.

Verse 11To set up on high - That is, who sets up on high; or God exalts those who are low. From the works of nature, Eliphaz passes to the dealings of God with people, as designed to show that he was worthy of confidence. The first proof is, that he showed himself to be the friend of the humble and the afflicted, and often exalted those who were in lowly circumstances, in a manner which evinced his direct interposition. It is to be remembered here, that Eliphaz is detailing the result of his own observation, and stating the reasons which he had observed for putting confidence in God; and the meaning here is, that he had so often seen this done as to show that God was the friend of the humble and the poor. This sentiment was afterward expressed with great beauty by Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus:He hath put down the mighty from their seats,And exalted them of low degree;

He hath filled the hungry with good things,And the rich he hath sent empty away.Luke 1:52-53.That those which mourn may be exalted to safety - Or rather, they who mourn are exalted to a place of safety, The sense is, that God did this; and that, therefore, there was ground of confidence in him. The word rendered “those which mourn” קדרים qoderıym is from קדר qadar to be turbid or foul as a torrent, Job 6:16; hence, to go about in filthy garments, like mourners, to mourn. The general sense of the Hebrew word, as in Arabic, is to be squalid, dark, filthy, dusky, obscure; and hence, it denotes those who are afflicted, which is its sense here. The Septuagint renders it, απολωλοτας apololotas “the lost,” or those who are perished. The sense is plain. God raises up the bowed down, the oppressed, and the afflicted. Eliphaz undoubtedly referred to instances which had come under his own observation, when persons who had been in very depressed circumstances, had been raised up to situations of comfort, honor, and safety: and that in a manner which was a manifest interposition of his Providence. From this he argued that those who were in circumstances of great trial, should put their trust in him. Cases of this kind often occur; and a careful observation of the dealings of God with the afflicted, would undoubtedly furnish materials for an argument like that on which Eliphaz relied in this instance.

Verse 12He disappointeth the devices of the crafty - He foils them in their schemes, or makes their plans vain. This too was the result of close observation on the part of Eliphaz. He had seen instances where the plans of crafty, designing, and artful people had been defeated, and where the straightforward had been prospered and honored. Such cases led him to believe that God was the friend of virtue, and was worthy of entire confidence.So that their hands - So that they. The hands are the instruments by which we accomplish our plans.Their enterprise - Margin, Or, “anything.” Hebrew tushıyah This תשיה word properly means uprightness from ,yasha‛ then help, deliverance ישע Job 6:13; then purpose, undertaking, enterprise, that is, what one wishes to set up or establish. Gesenius. This is its meaning here. Vulgate, “Their hands cannot finish (implere) what they had begun.” Septuagint, “Their hands cannot perform that which is true” - αληθες alethes The Chaldee Paraphrase refers this to the defeat

of the purposes of the Egyptians: “Who made vain the thoughts of the Egyptians, who acted wisely (or cunningly - that they might do evil to Israel, but ( דחכימו their hands did not perform the work of their wisdom Job 5:13, who took the wise men of Pharaoh in their own wisdom, and the counsel of their perverse astrologers he made to return upon them.” The general sense is, that artful and designing men - people who work in the dark, and who form secret purposes of evil, are disappointed and foiled. Eliphaz probably had seen instances of this, and he now attributes it to God as rendering him worthy of the confidence of people. It is still true. The crafty and the designing are often foiled in such a manner as to show that it is wholly of God. He exposes their designs in this way, and shows that he is the friend of the sincere and the honest; and in doing this, he shows that he is worthy the confidence of his people.

Verse 13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness - This passage is quoted by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:19 , with the usual formula in referring to the Old Testament, γεγραπται γαρ gegraptai gar “for it is written,” showing that he regarded it as a part of the inspired oracles of God. The word “wise” here undoubtedly means the cunning, the astute, the crafty, and the designing. It cannot mean those who are truly wise in the Scripture sense; but the meaning is, that those who form plans which they expect to accomplish by cunning and craft, are often the victims of their own designs. The same sentiment not unfrequently occurs in the Scriptures and elsewhere, and has all the aspect of being a proverb. Thus, in Psalm 7:15:He made a pit and digged it,And is fallen into the ditch which he made.”So Psalm 9:15:The pagan are sunk down into the pit that they made;In the net which they hid is their own foot taken.”So Psalm 35:8:Let his net that he hath bid catch himselfInto that very destruction let him fall.”So Psalm 37:15:Their sword shall enter into their own heart,And their bow shall be broken.”Compare Eurip. Med. 409:

Κακων δε παντων τεκτονες σοφωταται Kakon de panton tektones sofotatai also the same sentiment in Lucretius, v. 1151:Circumretit enim visatque injuria quemque,Atque, unde exorta cst, ad caim plerumque revertit.“For force and rapine in their craftiest netaOft their own sons entangle; and the plague Ten-fold recoils.”It is to be remembered that Eliphaz here speaks of his own observation, and of that as a reason for putting confidence in God. The sentiment is, that he had observed that a straightforward, honest, and upright course, was followed with the divine favor and blessing; but that a man who attempted to carry his plans by intrigue and stratagem, would not be permanently successfu. Sooner or later his cunning would recoil upon himself, and he would experience the disastrous consequences of such a course. It is still true. A man is always sure of ultimate success and prosperity, if he is straightforward and honest. He never can be sure of it, if he attempts to carry his plans by management. Other men may evince as much cunning as himself; and when his net springs, it may include himself as well as those for whom he set it. It will be well for him if it is not made to spring on him, while others escape.And the counsel of the froward - The design of the perverse. The word here rendered “froward,” pathal to twist, to twine, to פתל nıpathalıym is from נפתלים spin. It then means, to be twisted, crooked, crafty, deceitful. Here it means those who are crooked, artful, designing. Septuagint, πολυπλοκων poluplokon the involved - the much-entangled.Is carried headlong - Hebrew is precipitated, or hastened. There is not time for it to be matured; there is a development of the scheme before it is ripe, and the trick is detected before there is time to put it in execution. Nothing can be more true than this often is now. Something that could not be anticipated develops the design, and brings the dark plot out to mid-day; and God shows that he is the foe of all such schemes.

Verse 14They meet with darkness in the day-time - Margin, “run into;” compare the notes at Isaiah 59:10. The sense is, that where there is really no obstacle to the accomplishment of an honest plan - any more than there is for a man to walk in the day-time - they become perplexed and embarrassed, as much as a man

would be, should sudden darkness come around him at mid-day. The same sentiment occurs in Job 12:25. A life of honesty and uprightness will be attended with prosperity, but a man who attempts to carry his plans by trick and art, will meet with unexpected embarrassments. The sentiment in all these expressions is, that God embarrasses the cunning, the crafty, and the artful, but gives success to those who are upright; and that, therefore, he is worthy of confidence.

Verse 15But he saveth the poor from the sword - He shows himself to be the friend and protector of the defenseless. The phrase “from the sword, from their mouth,” has been variously interpreted. Dr. Good renders it,So he saveth the persecutors from their mouth,And the helpless from the hand of the violent.”Noyes,So he saveth the persecuted from their mouth,The oppressed from the hand of the mighty.”This rendering is obtained by changing the points in the word mechereb מחרב “from the sword,” to macherab making it the Hophal participle from מחרב חרב charab to make desolate. This was proposed by Capellus, and has been adopted by Durell, Michaelis, Dathe, Doederlein, and others. Rosenmuller pronounces it wholly unauthorized. Jerome renders it, a gladio otis eorum - “from the sword of their mouth.” It seems to me that the whole verse may be literally rendered, “he saveth from the sword, from their mouth, and from the hand of the strong, the poor.” According to this version, the phrase “from their mouth” may either mean from the mouth, i. e. the edge of the sword, using the plural for the singular, or from the mouth of oppressors, using it to represent their violence, and their disposition to devour the poor. The latter is more probably the true interpretation, and there is no need of a ehange in the points in the Hebrew. Thus, interpreted, the sense is, that God preserves the poor from oppression; or, in other words, that he befriends them, and is therefore worthy of confidence. This sentiment accords with what is found everywhere in the Bible.

Verse 16So the poor hath hope - From the interposition of God. They are not left in a sad and comfortless condition. They are permitted to regard God as their protector and friend, and to look forward to another and a better world. This

sentiment accords with all that is elsewhere said in the Scriptures, that the offers of mercy are specially made to the poor, and that they are especially the objects of the divine compassion.And iniquity stoppeth her mouth - That is, the wicked are confounded when they see all their plans foiled, and find themselves entangled in the snares which they have laid for others. A similar sentiment occurs in Psalm 107:41-42:Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction,And maketh him families like a flock.The righteous shall see it and rejoice,And all iniquity shall stop her mouth.”It is to be remembered that Eliphaz states this as the result of his own observation, and as clearly demonstrating in his view that there is a superintending and overruling Providence. A careful observation of the course of events would lead undoubtedly to the same conclusion, and this has been embodied in almost every language by some proverbial sentiment. We express it by saying that “honesty is the best policy;” a proverb that is undoubtcdly founded in wisdom. The sentiment is, that if a man wishes long to prosper, he should pursue a straight-forward and an honest course; that cunning, intrigue, underhanded dealing, and mere management, will sooner or later defeat itself, and recoil on the head of him who uses it; and that, therefore, if there were no higher motive than self-interest, a man should be honest, frank, and open. See this argument stated at greater length, and with great beauty, in Psalm 37.

Verse 17Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth - This verse commences a new argument, designed to show that afflictions are followed by so important advantages as to make it proper that we should submit to them without a complaint. The sentiment in this verse, if not expressly quoted, is probably alluded to by the apostle Paul in Hebrews 12:5. The same thought frequently occurs in the Bible: see James 1:12; Proverbs 3:11-12. The sense is plain, that God confers a favor on us when he recalls us from our sins by the corrections of his paternal hand - as a father confers a favor on a child whom he restrains from sin by suitable correction. The way in which this is done, Eliphaz proceeds to state at length. He does it in most beautiful language, and in a manner entirely in accordance with the sentiments which occur elsewhere in the Bible. The word

rendered “correcteth” (יכח yakach ) means to argue, convince, reprove, punish, and to judge.It here refers to any of the modes by which God calls people from their sins, and leads them to walk in the paths of virtue. The word “happy” here, means that the condition of such an one is blessed (אשרי 'eshrey ); Greek μακαριος makarios - not that there is happiness in the suffering. The sense is, that it is a favor when God recalls his friends from their wanderings, and from the error of their ways, rather than to suffer them to go on to ruin. He does me a kindness who shows me a precipice down which I am in danger of falling; he lays me under obligation to him who even with violence saves me from flames which would devour me. Eliphaz undoubtedly means to be understood as implying that Job had been guilty of transgression, and that God had taken this method to recall him from the error of his ways. That he had sinned, and that these calamities had come as a consequence, he seems never once to doubt; yet he supposes that the affliction was meant in kindness, and proceeds to state that if Job would receive it in a proper manner, it might be attended still with important benefits.Therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty - “Do not regret ( tım'as ). Septuagint, μη απαναινου me apanainou - the means which God תמאסis using to admonish you.” There is direct allusion here undoubtedly to the feelings which Job had manifested Job 3; and the object of Eliphaz is, to show him that there were important benefits to be derived from affliction which should make him willing to bear it without complaining. Job had exhibited, as Eliphaz thought, a disposition to reject the lessons which afflictions were designed to teach him, and to spurn the admonitions of the Almighty. From that state of mind he would recall him, and would impress on him the truth that there were such advantages to be derived from those afflictions as should make him willing to endure all that was laid upon him without a complaint.

Verse 18For he maketh sore - That is, he afflicts.And bindeth up - He heals. The phrase is taken from the custom of binding up a wound; see Isaiah 1:6, note; Isaiah 38:21, note. This was a common mode of healing among the Hebrews; and the practice of medicine appears to have been confined much to external applications. The meaning of this verse is, that afflictions come from God, and that he only can support, comfort, and restore.

Health is his gift; and all the consolation which we need, and for which we can look, must come from him.

Verse 19He shall deliver thee in six troubles - Six is used here to denote an indefinite number, meaning that he would support in many troubles. This mode of speech is not uncommon among the Hebrews, where one number is mentioned, so that an extreme number may be immediately added. The method is, to mention a number within the limit, and then to add one more, meaning that in all instances the thing referred to would occur. The limit here is seven, with the Hebrews a complete and perfect number; and the idea is, that in any succession of troubles, however numerous, God was able to deliver. Similar expressions not unfrequently occur. Thus, in Amos 1:3, Amos 1:6, Amos 1:9, Amos 1:11, Amos 1:13; Amos 2:1, Amos 2:4, Amos 2:6:Thus saith the Lord:For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four,I will not turn away the punishment thereof.Thus saith the Lord:For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four,I will not turn away, the punishment thereof.Thus saith the Lord:For three transgressions of Tyrus, and for four,I will not turn away the punishment thereof.Thus in Proverbs 30:15:There are three things that are never satisfied,Yea, four things say not, It is enough.There be three things that are too wonderful for me,Yea, four which I know not. Proverbs 30:18.For three things the earth is disquieted,And for four which it cannot bear.” Proverbs 30:21.There be three things that go well,Yea, four are comely in going:A lion which is strongest among beasts,And turneth not away for any;A grey-hound;An he-goat also;

And a king, against whom there is no rising up.” Proverbs 30:29-31.Compare Homer, Iliad vi. 174:Εννημαρ ξεινισσε και εννεα βους ιερευσεν Ennemar ceinisse kai ennea bous hiereusen enumeration, in regard to number similar to the one before us, occurs in Proverbs 6:16:These six things doth the Lord hate;Yea, seven are an abomination to him.There shall no evil touch thee - That is, permanently; for he could not mean that he would not be subjected to calamity at all, since by the very supposition he was a sufferer. But the sense is, that God would save from those calamities.

Verse 20In famine he shall redeem thee - That is, will deliver thee from death. On the meaning of the word “redeem,” see the notes at Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 43:3.From the power of the sword - Margin, as in Hebrew “hands.” That is, he should not be slain by armed men. A mouth is often attributed to the sword in the Scriptures, because it devours; “hands” are attributed to it here, because it is by the hand that we perform an undertaking, and the sword is personified, and represented as acting as a conscious agent; compare Ezekiel 35:5, margin. The meaning is that God would protect those who put their trust in him, in times of calamity and war. Doubtless Eliphaz had seen instances enough of this kind to lead him to this general conclusion, where the pious poor had been protected in a remarkable manner, and where signal deliverances had been vouchsafed to the righteous in danger.

Verse 21Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue - Margin, Or, “when the tongue scourgeth.” The word rendered “scourge” - שוט shot - means properly a whip. It is used of God when he scourges people by calamities and punishments; Isaiah 10:26; Job 9:23. See the use of the verb shut in שוט Job 2:7. Here it is used to denote a slanderous tongue, as being that which inflicts a severe wound upon the reputation and peace of an individual. The idea is, that God would guard the reputation of those who commit themselves to him, and that they shall be secure from slander, “whose breath,” Shakespeare says, “outvenoms all the worms of Nile.”

Neither shalt thou be afraid when destruction cometh - That is, your mind shall be calm in those calamities which threaten destruction. When war rages, when the tempest howls, when the pestilence breathes upon a community, then your mind shall be at peace. A similar thought occurs in Isaiah 26:3: “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee;” and the same sentiment is beautifully illustrated at length in Job 5:20: “In the famine in Egypt, he redeemed thee from death; and in the war with Amalek, from being slain by the sword;” Job 5:21: “In the injury inflicted by the tongue of Balaam thou wert hid among the clouds, and thou didst not fear from the desolation of the Midianites when it came;” Job 5:22: “In the desolation of Sihon, and in the famine of the desert, thou didst laugh; and of the camps of Og, who was like a wild beast of the earth, thou wert not afraid.”

Verse 22At destruction and famine thou shalt laugh - That is thou shalt be perfectly safe and happy. They shall not come upon thee; and when they approach with threatening aspect, thou shalt smile with conscious security. The word here rendered famine (כפן kaphan ) is an unusual word, and differs from that occurring in Job 5:20, רעב ra‛ab This word is derived from כפן kaphan - to languish, to pine from hunger and thirst. It then means the languid and feeble state which exists where there is a lack of proper nutriment. A sentiment similar to that which is here expressed occurs in Martial, iv. 19,4. Ridebis ventos line munere tectus, et imbres. “Neither shalt thou be afraid of the beasts of the earth.” Wild beasts in new countries are always objects of dread, and in the fastnesses and deserts of Arabia, they were especially so. They abounded there; and one of the highest images of happiness there would be, that there would be perfect safety from them. A similar promise occurs in Psalm 91:13:Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder;The young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under foot.And a promise similar to this was made by the Savior to his disciples: “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.” The sentiment of Eliphaz is, that they who put their trust in God would find protection, and have the consciousness that they were secure wherever they were.

Verse 23

For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field - In the Hebrew, “There shall be a covenant between thee and the stones of the field.” The sense is, they shall not harm thee. They are here spoken of as enemies that were made to be at peace, and that would not annoy or injure. It is to be remembered that this was spoken in Arabia, where rocks and stones abounded, and where traveling, from that cause, was difficult and dangerous. The sense here is, as I understand it, that he would be permitted to make his way in ease and safety. Tindal renders it:But the castels in the land shall be confederate with thee;The beastes of the fealde shall give thee peace.Some have supposed that the meaning is, that the land would be free from stones that rendered it barren, and would be rendered fertile if the favor of God was sought. Shaw, in his Travels, supposes that it refers to the custom of walking over stones, in which the feet are liable to be injured every moment, and that the meaning is, that that danger would be averted by the divine interposition. By others it has been conjectured that the allusion is to a custom which is known as skopelism, of which Egmont and Heyman (Reisen, II. Th. S. 156), give the following account: “that in Arabia, if anyone is living at variance with another he places on his land stones as a warning that no one should dare to plow it, as by doing it he would expose himself to the danger of being punished by him who had placed the stones there.” This custom is also referred to by Ulpian (L. ix. de officio Proconsulis), and in the Greek Pandects, Lib. lx. Tit. xxii. Leg. 9. It may be doubted, however, whether this custom was as early as the time of Job, or was so common then as to make it probable that the allusion is to it. Rosenmuller supposes the meaning to be, “Thy field shall be free from stones, which would render it unfruitful.” Alte u. neue Morgenland, in loc. Other explanations may be seen in Rosenmuller (Commentary), but it seems to me that the view presented above, that traveling would be rendered safe and pleasant, is the true one. Such a promise would be among the rich blessings in a country like Arabia.

Verse 24And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace - Thy tent - אהלך 'ahelekah - showing that it was common then to dwell in tents. The sense is, that when he was away from home he would have confidence that his dwelling was secure, and his family safe. This would be an assurance producing no small degree of consolation in a country abounding in wild beasts and robbers. Such is

the nature of the blessing which Eliphaz says the man would have who put his confidence in God, and committed his cause to him. To a certain extent this was, and is, undoubtedly true. A man cannot indeed have miraculous assurance when from home, that his wife and children are still alive, and in health; nor can he be certain that his dwelling is not wrapped in flames, or that it has been preserved from the intrusion of evil-minded men. But he may feel assured that all is under the wise control of God; that whatever occurs will be by his permission and direction, and will tend to ultimate good. He may also, with calmness and peace, commit his home with all that is dear to him to God, and feel that in his hands all is safe.And thou shalt visit thy habitation - That is, on the return from a journey.And not sin - This is a very unhappy translation. The true sense is thou shalt not miss thy dwelling; thou shalt not wander away lost, to return no more. The word used here, and which is rendered “sin” in our common version, is חטא chata' It is true that it is commonly rendered to sin, and that it often has this sense. But it properly means “to miss;” that is, not to hit the mark, spoken of a slinger. Judges 20:16; then to make a false step, to stumble or fall, Proverbs 19:2. It thus accords exactly in sense with the Greek αμαρτανω hamartano Here the original sense of the Hebrew word should bo retained, meaning that he would not miss the way to his dwelling; that is, that he would be permitted to return to it in safety. Gesenius, however, renders it, “thou musterest thy pasture (flocks), and missest naught:” that is, nothing is gone; all thy flocks are there. But the more obvious sense, and a sense which the connection demands, is that which refers the whole description to a man who is on a journey, and who is exposed to the dangers of wild beasts, and to the perils of a rough and stony way, but who is permitted to visit his home without missing it or being disappointed. A great variety ofinterpretations have been given of the passage, which may be seen in Rosenmuller and Good. Many suppose it means that he should review his domestic aflfairs, and find all to his mind; or should find that everything was in its place, or was as it should be. It can, not be doubted that the Hebrew word “visit” ( paqad ) will bear this interpretation, but that above proposed seems to me פקדbest to suit the connection. The margin correctly renders it, err.

Verse 25

Thou shalt know also that thy seed shall be great - Margin, “much.” That is, thy posterity shall be numerous. This was one of the blessings supposed to be connected with the favor of God; see the notes at Isaiah 53:10.And thine offspring as the grass of the earth - On the meaning of the word here rendered offspring, see the notes at Isaiah 48:19. Nothing is more common in the Scriptures, than to compare a prosperous and a happy man to a green and flourishing tree; see Psalm 1:3; Psalm 92:12-14. The idea here is, that the righteous would have a numerous and a happy posterity, and that the divine favor to them would bc shown by the blessing of God on their children; compare Psalm 128:1, Psalm 128:3.Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord,That walketh in his ways.Thy wife shall be a fruitful vine by the side of thine house;Thy children like olive-plants round about thy table.

Verse 26Thou shalt come to thy grave in full age - That is, thou shalt have long life; thou shalt not be cut down prematurely, nor by any sudden calamity. It is to be remembered that long life was regarded as an eminent blessing in ancient times; see the notes at Isaiah 65:22.Like as a shock of corn cometh in in his season - Margin, “ascendeth.” As a sheaf of grain is harvested when it is fully ripe. This is a beautiful comparison, and the meaning is obvious. He would not be cut off before his plans were fully matured; before the fruits of righteousness had ripened in his life. He would be taken away when he was ripe for heaven - as the yellow grain is for the harvest. Grain is not cut down when it is green; and the meaning of Eliphaz is, that it is as desirable that man should live to a good old age before he is gathered to his fathers, as it is that grain should be suffered to stand until it is fully ripe.

Verse 27Lo this - All this that I have said; the truth of all the remarks which I have made.We have searched it - We have by careful observation of the course of events come to these conclusions. These are our views of the providence of God, and of the principles of his government, as far as we have had the opportunity of observing, and they are well worthy of your attention. The sentiments in these two chapters indicate close and accurate observation; and if we think that the

observation was not always wholly accurate, or that the principles were carried further than facts would warrant, or that Eliphaz applied them with somewhat undue severity to the case of Job, we are to remember that this was in the infancy of the world, that they had few historical records, and that they had no written revelation. If they were favored with occasional revelations, as Eliphaz claimed (Job 4:12 ff), yet they were few in number, and at distant intervals, and the divine communications pertained to but few points.Though it may without impropriety be maintained that some of the views of Eliphaz and his friends were not wholly accurate, yet we may safely ask, Where among the Greek and Roman sages can views of the divine government be found that equal these in correctness, or that are expressed with equal force and beauty? For profound and accurate observation, for beauty of thought and sublimity of expression, the sage of Teman will not fall behind the sages of Athens; and not the least interesting thing in the contemplation of the book of Job, is the comparison which we are almost of necessity compelled to make between the observations on the course of events which were made in Arabia, and those which were made by the philosophers of the ancient pagan world. Is it improper to suppose that one design of this book was to show how far the human mind could go, with the aid of occasional revelations on a few points, in ascertaining the principles of the divine administration, and to demonstrate that, after all, the mind needed a fuller revelation to enable man to comprehend the truths pertaining to the kingdom of God? “Hear it for thy good.” Margin, as in Hebrew “thyself.” These principles are such that they are of importance for you to understand and to apply.

06 Chapter 6 Verse 2O that my grief were thoroughly weighed - The word rendered “grief” here (( ka‛as כעש may mean either vexation, trouble, grief; Ecclesiastes 1:18; Ecclesiastes 2:23; or it may mean anger; Deuteronomy 32:19; Ezekiel 20:28. It is rendered by the Septuagint here, οργη orge - anger; by Jerome, peccata - sins. The sense of the whole passage may either be, that Job wished his anger or his complaints to be laid in the balance with his calamity, to see if one was more weighty than the other - meaning that he had not complained unreasonably or unjustly (Rosenmuller); or that he wished that his afflictions might be put into one scale and the sands of the sea into another, and the one weighed against the

other (Noyes); or simply, that he desired that his sorrows should be accurately estimated. This latter is, I think, the true sense of the passage. He supposed his friends had not understood and appreciated his sufferings; that they were disposed to blame him without understanding the extent of his sorrows, and he desires that they would estimate them aright before they condemned him. In particular, he seems to have supposed that Eliphaz had not done justice to the depth of his sorrows in the remarks which he had just made. The figure of weighing actions or sorrows, is not uncommon or unnatural. It means to take an exact estimate of their amount. So we speak of heavy calamities, of afflictions that crush us by their weight. etc.Laid in the balances - Margin, “lifted up.” That is, raised up and put in the scales, or put in the scales and then raised up - as is common in weighing.Together - יחד yachad At the same time; that all my sorrows, griefs, and woes, were piled on the scales, and then weighed. He supposed that only a partial estimate had been formed of the extent of his calamities.

Verse 3Heavier than the sand of the sea - That is, they would be found to be insupportable. Who could bear up the sands of the sea? So Job says of his sorrows. A comparison somewhat similar is found in Proverbs 27:3.Heavy is a stone, and weighty the sand of the Sea,But a fool‘s wrath is heavier than them both.My words are swallowed up - Margin, “I want words to express my grief.” This expresses the true sense - but not with the same poetic beauty. We express the same idea when we say that we are choked with grief; we are so overwhelmed with sorrow that we cannot speak. Any very deep emotion prevents the power of utterance. So in Psalm 77:4:Thou holdest mine eyes waking:I am so troubled that I cannot speak.So the well-known expressions in Virgil,Obstupui, steteruntque comae, et vox faucibus haesit.There has been, however, considerable variety in the interpretation of the word here rendered swallowed up - לוע lua‛ Gesenius supposes that it means to speak rashly, to talk at random, and that the idea is, that Job now admits that his remarks had been unguarded - “therefore were my words rash.” The same sense Castell gives to the Arabic word. Schultens renders it, “therefore are my words

tempestuous or fretful.” Rosenmuller, “my words exceed due moderation.” Castellio, “my words fail.” Luther, “therefore it is vain that I speak.” The Septuagint, “but my words seem to be evil.” Jerome, “my words are full of grief.” In this variety it is difficult to determine the meaning; but probably the old interpretation is to be retained, by which the word is derived from lua‛ to לוע absorb, to swallow up; compare Proverbs 20:25; Obadiah 1:16; Job 39:30; Proverbs 23:2. The word does not elsewhere occur.

Verse 4For the arrows of the Almighty are within me - That is, it is not a light affliction that I endure. I am wounded in a manner which could not be caused by man - called to endure a severity of suffering which shows that it proceeds from the Almighty. Thus called to suffer what man could not cause, he maintains that it is right for him to complain, and that the words which he employed were not an improper expression of the extent of the grief.The poison whereof drinketh up my spirit - Takes away my rigor, my comfort, my life. He here compares his afflictions with being wounded with poisoned arrows. Such arrows were not unfrequently used among the ancients. The object was to secure certain death, even where the wound caused by the arrow itself would not produce it. Poison was made so concentrated, that the smallest quantity conveyed by the point of an arrow would render death inevitable. This practice contributed much to the barbarity of savage war. Thus, Virgil speaks of poisoned arrows:Ungere tela manu, ferrumque armare veneno.Aeneid ix. 773And again, Aen x. 140:Vulnera dirigere, et calamos armare veneno.So Ovid, Lib. 1. de Ponto, Eleg. ii. of the Scythians:Qui mortis saevo geminent ut vulnere causas,Omnia vipereo spicula felle linunt.Compare Justin, Lib. ii. c. 10. section 2; Grotius, de Jure Belli et Pacis; and Virgil, En. xii. 857. In the Odyssey, i. 260ff we read of Ulysses that he went to Ephyra, a city of Thessaly, to obtain from Ilus, the son of Mermer, deadly poison, that he might smear it over the iron point of his arrows. The pestilence which produced so great a destruction in the Grecian camp is also said by Homer (Iliad i. 48) to have been caused by arrows shot from the bow of Apollo. The phrase “drinketh

up the spirit” is very expressive. We speak now of the sword thirsting for blood; but this language is more expressive and striking. The figure is not uncommon in the poetry of the East and of the ancients. In the poem of Zohair, the third of the Moallakat, or those transcribed in golden letters, and suspended in the temple of Mecca, the same image occurs. It is thus rendered by Sir William Jones:Their javelins had no share in drinking the blood of Naufel.A similar expression occurs in Sophocles in Trachinn, verse 1061, as quoted by Schultens, when describing the pestilence in which Hercules suffered:εκ δε χλωρον αιμα μου Πεπωκεν ηδη - ek de chloron haima mou Pepoken ede - This has been imitated by Cicero in Tusculan. Disp. ii. 8:Haec me irretivit veste furiali inscium,Quae lateri inhaerens morsu lacerat viscera,Urgensque graviter, pulmonum haurit spiritus,Jam decolorem sanguinem omnem exsorbuit.So Lucan, Pharsa. ix. 741ff gives a similar description:Ecce subit virus taciturn, carpitque medullasIgnis edax calidaque iacendit viscera tabe.Ebibit humorem circa vitalia fusumPestis, et in sicco linguan torrere palato Coepit.Far more beautiful, however, than the expressions of any of the ancient Classics - more tender, more delicate, more full of pathos - is the description which the Christian poet Cowper gives of the arrow that pierces the side of the sinner. It is the account of his own conversion:I was a stricken deer that left the herdLong since. With many an artery deep infix‘dMy panting side was charged when I withdrewTo seek a tranquil death in distant shades.There I was found by one, who had himselfBeen hurt by the archers. In his side he bore,And in his hands and feet, the cruel scars.Task, b. iii.Of such wounding he did not complain. The arrow was extracted by the tender hand of him who alone had power to do it. Had Job known of him; had he been fully acquainted with the plan of mercy through him, and the comfort which a wounded sinner may find there, we should not have heard the bitter complaints

which he uttered in his trials. Let us not judge him with the severity which we may use of one who is afflicted and complains under the full light of the gospel.The terrors of God do set themselves in array against me - Those things which God uses to excite terror. The word which is rendered “set in array” (ערך ‛arak ) properly denotes the drawing up of a line for battle; and the sense is here, that all these terrors seem to be drawn up in battle array, as if on purpose to destroy him. No expression could more strikingly describe the condition of an awakened sinner, though it is not certain that Job used it precisely in this sense. The idea as he used it is, that all that God commonly employed to produce alarm seemed to be drawn up as in a line of battle against him.

Verse 5Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? - On the habits of the wild ass, see the notes at Job 11:12. The meaning of Job here is, that he did not complain without reason; and this he illustrates by the fact that the wild animal that had a plentiful supply of food would be gentle and calm, and that when its bray was heard it was proof that it was suffering. So Job says that there was a reason for his complaining. He was suffering; and perhaps he means that his complaint was just as natural, and just as innocent, as the braying of the ass for its food. He should have remembered however, that he was endowed with reason, and that he was bound to evince a different spirit from the brute creation.Or loweth the ox over his fodder? - That is, the ox is satisfied and uncomplaining when his needs are supplied. The fact that he lows is proof that he is in distress, or there is a reason for it. So Job says that his complaints were proof that he was in distress, and that there was a reason for his language of complaint.

Verse 6Can that which is unsavoury - Which is insipid, or without taste.Be eaten without salt - It is necessary to add salt in order to make it either palatable or wholesome. The literal truth of this no one can doubt, Insipid food cannot be relished, nor would it long sustain life. “The Orientals eat their bread often with mere salt, without any other addition except some dry and pounded summer-savory, which last is the common method at Aleppo.” Russell‘s Natural History of Aleppo, p. 27. It should be remembered, also, that the bread of the Orientals is commonly mere unleavened cakes; see Rosenmuller, Alte u. neue

Morgenland, on Genesis 18:6. The idea of Job in this adage or proverb is, that there was a fitness and propriety in things. Certain things went together, and were necessary companions. One cannot be expected without the other; one is incomplete without the other. Insipid food requires salt in order to make it palatable and nutritious, and so it is proper that suffering and lamentation should be united.There was a reason for his complaints, as there was for adding salt to unsavory food. Much perplexity, however, has been felt in regard to this whole passage; Job 6:6-7. Some have supposed that Job means to rebuke Eliphaz severely for his harangue on the necessity of patience, which he characterizes as insipid, impertinent, and disgusting to him; as being in fact as unpleasant to his soul as the white of an egg was to the taste. Dr. Good explains it as meaning, “Doth that which has nothing of seasoning, nothing of a pungent or irritating power within it, produce pungency or irritation? I too should be quiet and complain not, if I had nothing provocative or acrimonious; but alas! the food I am doomed to partake of is the very calamity which is most acute to my soul, that which I most loathe, and which is most grievous or trying to my palate.” But the real sense of this first part of the verse is, I think, that which is expressed above - that insipid food requires proper condiment, and that in his sufferings there was a real ground for lamentation and complaint - as there was for making use of salt in that which is unsavory. I see no reason to think that he meant in this to reproach Eliphaz for an insipid and unmeaning address.Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? - Critics and commentators have been greatly divided about the meaning of this. The Septuagint renders it, ει δε και εστι γευμα εν ρημασι κενοις ei de kai esti geuma en remasi kenois is there any taste in vain words? Jerome (Vulgate), “can anyone taste that which being tasted produces death?” The Targums render it substantially as it is in our version. The Hebrew word rendered “white” (ריר rıyr ) means properly spittle; 1 Samuel 21:13 . If applied to an egg, it means the white of it, as resembling spittle. The word rendered “egg” (חלמות challamuth ) occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. If it be regarded as derived from חלם chalam to sleep, or dream, it may denote somnolency or dreams, and then fatuity, folly, or a foolish speech, as resembling dreams; and many have supposed that Job meant to characterize the speech of Eliphaz as of this description.The word may mean, as it does in Syriac, a species of herb, the “purslain” (Gesenius), proverbial for its insipidity among the Arabs, Greeks, and Romans,

but which was used as a salad; and the whole phrase here may denote purslain-broth, and hence, an insipid discourse. This is the interpretation of Gesenius. But the more common and more probable explanation is that of our common version, denoting the white of an egg. But what is the point of the remark as Job uses it? That it is a proverbial expression, is apparent; but in what way Job meant to apply it, is not so clear. The Jews say that he meant to apply it to the speech of Eliphaz as being insipid and dull, without anything to penetrate the heart or to enliven the fancy; a speech as disagreeable to the mind as the white of an egg was insipid to the taste. Rosenmuller supposes that he refers to his afflictions as being as unpleasant to bear as the white of an egg was to the taste. It seems to me that the sense of all the proverbs used here is about the same, and that they mean, “there is a reason for everything which occurs. The ass brays and the ox lows only when destitute of food. That which is insipid is unpleasant, and the white of an egg is loathsome. So with my afflictions. They produce loathing and disgust, My very food Job 6:7 is disagreeable, and everything seems tasteless as the most insipid food would. Hence the language which I have used - language spoken not without reason, and expressive of this state of the soul.”

Verse 7The things that my soul refused to touch - That I refused to touch - the word “soul” here being used to denote himself. The idea here is, that those things which formerly were objects of loathing to him, had become his painful and distressing food. The idea may be either that he was reduced to the greatest pain and distress in partaking of his food, since he loathed that which he was obliged to eat (compare notes, Job 3:24), or more probably his calamity is described under the image of loathsome food in accordance with the Oriental usage, by which one is said to eat or taste anything; that is, to experience it. His sorrows were as sickening to him as the articles of food which he had mentioned were to the stomach. The Septuagint renders it strangely, “For my wrath - μου η οργη mou he orge - cannot cease. For I see my food offensive as the smell of a lion‘ - ωσπερ οσμην λεοντος hosper osmen leontos f0.

Verse 8Oh that I might have my request - To wit, death. This he desired as the end of his sorrows, either that he might be freed from them, or that he might be admitted to a happy world - or both.

Would grant me the thing that I long for - Margin, “My expectation.” That is, death. He expected it; he looked out for it; he was impatient that the hour should come. This state of feeling is not uncommon - where sorrows become so accumulated and intense that a man desires to die. It is no evidence, however, of a preparation for death. The wicked are more frequently in this state than the righteous. They are overwhelmed with pain; they see no hope of deliverance from it and they impatiently wish that the end had come. They are stupid about the future world, and either suppose that the grave is the end of their being, or that in some undefinable way they will be made happy hereafter. The righteous, on the other hand, are willing to wait until God shall be pleased to release them, feeling that He has some good purpose in all that they endure, and that they do not suffer one pang too much. Such sometimes were Job‘s feelings; but here, as in some other instances, no one can doubt that he was betrayed into unjustifiable impatience under his sorrows, and that he expressed an improper wish to die.

Verse 9Even that it would please God to destroy me - To put me to death, and to release me from my sorrows; compare Job 3:20-21. The word rendered “destroy” here (דכא daka' ) means properly to break in pieces, to crush, to trample under foot, to make small by bruising. Here the sense is, that Job wished that God would crush him, so as to take his life. The Septuagint renders it “wound” - τρωσατω trosato The Chaldee renders it, “Let God, who has begun to make me poor, loose his hand and make me rich.”That he would let loose his hand - Job here represents the hand of God as bound or confined. He wishes that that fettered hand were released, and were so free in its inflictions that he might be permitted to die.And cut me off - This expression, says Gesenius (Lexicon on the word בצע betsa‛ ), is a metaphor derived from a weaver, who, when his web is finished, cuts it off from the thrum by which it is fastened to the loom; see the notes at Isaiah 38:12. The sense is, that Job wished that God would wholly finish his work, and that as he had begun to destroy him he would complete it.

Verse 10Then should I yet have comfort - Dr. Good renders this, “then would I already take comfort.” Noyes, “yet it should still be my consolation.” The literal sense is, “and there would be to me yet consolation;” or “my consolation would yet be.”

That is, he would find comfort in the grave (compare Job 3:13 ff), or in the future world.I would harden myself in sorrow - Dr. Good renders this, “and I will leap for joy.” In a similar way Noyes renders it, “I would exult.” So Schultens understands the expression. The Hebrew word rendered “I would harden myself” (סלד salad ) occurs nowhere else, and expositors have been divided in regard to its meaning. According to Castell, it means to strengthen, to confirm. The Chaldee (סלד ) means to grow warm, to glow, to burn. The Arabic word is applied to a horse, and means to beat the earth with his feet, and then to leap, to exult, to spring up; and this is the idea which Gesenius and others suppose is to be retained here - an idea which certainly better suits the connection than the common one of hardening himself in sorrow. The Septuagint renders it ηλλομην hellomen - “I would leap,” or exult, although they have sadly missed the sense in the other part of the verse. They render it, “Let but my city be a grave, upon whose walls I will leap; I will not spare, for I have not falsified the holy words of my God.” The Chaldee renders it, “and I will exult (ואבוע ) when fury comes upon the wicked.” The probable meaning is, that Job would exult or rejoice, if be was permitted to die; he would triumph even in the midst of his sorrow, if he might lie down and expire.Let him not spare - Let him not withhold or restrain those sufferings which would sink me down to the grave.For I have not concealed the words of the Holy One - I have openly and boldly maintained a profession of attachment to the cause of God, and to his truth. I have, in a public and solemn manner, professed attachment to my Maker; I have not refused to acknowledge that I am his; I have not been ashamed of him and his cause. How much consolation may be found in such a reflection when we come to die! If there has been a consistent profession of religion; if there has been no shrinking back from attachment to God; if in all circles, high and low, rich and poor, frivolous and serious, there has been an unwavering and steady, though not ostentatious, attachment to the cause of God, it will give unspeakable consolation and confidence when we come to die. If there has been concealment, and shame, and shrinking back from a profession of religion, there will be shame, and regret, and sorrow; compare Psalm 40:9; Acts 20:20-27.

Verse 11

What is my strength, that I should hope? - Job had hitherto borne his trials without apprehension that he would lose his constancy of hope, or his confidence in God. He here seems to apprehend that his constancy might fail, and he therefore wishes to die before he should be left to dishonor God. He asks, therefore, what strength he had that he should hope to be able to sustain his trials much longer.And what is mine end, that I should prolong my life? - Various interpretations have been given of this passage. Some suppose it means, “What is the limit of my strength? How long will it last?” Others, “What end is there to be to my miseries?” Others, “How distant is mine end? How long have I to live?” Noyes renders it, “And what is mine end that I should be patient?” Rosenmuller supposes that the word “end” here means the “end of his strength,” or that he had not such fortitude as to be certain that he could long bear his trials without complaining or murmuring. The phrase rendered “prolong my life,” probably means rather “to lengthen the patience,” or to hold out under accumulated sorrows. The word rendered life נפש nephesh often means soul, spirit, mind, as well as life, and the sense is, that he could not hope, from any strength that he had, to bear without complaining these trials until the natural termination of his life; and hence, he wished God to grant his request, and to destroy him. Feeling that his patience was sinking under his calamities, be says that it would be better for him to die than be left to dishonor his Maker. It is just the state of feeling which many a sufferer has, that his trials are so great that nature will sink under them, and that death would be a relief. Then is the time to look to God for support and consolation.

Verse 12Is my strength the strength of stones? - That is, like a rampart or fortification made of stones, or like a craggy rock that can endure assaults made upon it. A rock will bear the beatings of the tempest, and resist the floods, but how can frail man do it? The idea of Job is, that he had no strength to bear up against these accumulated trials; that he was afraid that he should be left to sink under them, and to complain of God; and that his friends were not to wonder if his strength gave way, and he uttered the language of complaint.Or is my flesh of brass? - Margin, “brazen.” The comparison used here is not uncommon. So Cicero, Aca. Qu. iv. 31, says, Non enim est e saxo sculptus, ant e robore dolatus homo; habet corpus, habet animum; movetur mente, movetur

sensibus: - “for man is not chiselled out of the rock, nor cut from a tree; he has a body, he has a soul; he is actuated by mind, he is swayed by senses.” So Theocritus, in his description of Amycus, Idyll. xxii. 47:Στηθεα δ εσφαιρωτο πελωρια και πλατυ νωτον,Σαρκι σιδαρειη σφυρηλακος οια κολασσος. Stethea d' esfairoto peloria kai platu noton Sarki sidareie sfurelakos hoia kolossos Round as to his vast breast and broad back, and with iron flesh, he is as if a colossus formed with a hammer - So in Homer the expression frequently occurs - σιδηρειον ητορ sidereion etor - an iron heart - to denote courage. And so, according to Schultens, it has come to be a proverb, ουκ απο δρυος, ουκ απο πετρης ouk apo druos ouk apo petres - not from a tree, not from a rock. The meaning of Job is plain. He had flesh like others. His muscles, and nerves, and sinews, could not bear a constant force applied to them, as if they were made of brass or iron. They must give way; and he apprehended that he would sink under these sorrows, and be left to use language that might dishonor God. At all events, he felt that these great sorrows justified the strong expressions which he had already employed.

Verse 13Is not my help in me? - This would be better rendered in an affirmative manner, or as an exclamation. The interrogative form of the previous verses need not be continued in this. The sense is, “alas! there is no help in me!” That is, “I have no strength; I must give up under these sorrows in despair.” So it is rendered by Jerome, Rosenmuller, Good, Noyes, and others.And is wisdom quite driven from me? - This, also, should be read as an affirmation, “deliverance is driven from me.” The word rendered wisdom (תשיה tushıyah ) means properly a setting upright; then help, deliverance; and then purpose, enterprise; see the notes at Job 5:12. Here it means that all hope of deliverance had fled, and that he was sinking in despair.

Verse 14To him that is afflicted - Margin, “melteth.” The word here used (מס mas ) is from ,masas to melt מסס flow down, waste away, and here means one who pines away, or is consumed under calamities. The design of this verse is, to reprove his friends for the little sympathy which they had shown for him. He had looked for consolation in his trials, and he had a right to expect it; but he says

that he had met with just the opposite, and that his calamity was aggravated by the fact that they had dealt only in the language of severity.Pity should be showed from his friend - Good renders this, “shame to the man who despiseth his friend.” A great variety of interpretations have been proposed of the passage, but our translation has probably expressed the true sense. If there is any place where kindness should be shown, it is when a man is sinking under accumulated sorrows to the grave.But he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty - This may be either understood as referring to the language which Job says they had used of him - charging him with forsaking the fear of God, instead of consoling him; or it may mean that they had forsaken the fear of God in reproaching him, and in failing to comfort him; or it may mean that if such kindness were not shown to a friend in trial, he would be left to cast off the fear of God. This last interpretation is adopted by Noyes. Good supposes that it is designed to be a severe reproach of Eliphaz, for the course which he had pursued. It seems to me that this is probably the correct interpretation, and that the particle ,here is used in an adversative sense ( v) ו meaning that while it was an obvious dictate of piety to show kindness to a friend, Eliphaz had forgotten this obligation, and had indulged himself in a strain of remark which could not have been prompted by true religion. This sentiment he proceeds to illustrate by one of the most beautiful comparisons to be found in any language.

Verse 15My brethren - To wit, the three friends who had come to condole with him. He uses the language of brethren, to intimate what he had a right to expect from them. It is common in all languages to give the name brethren to friends.Have dealt deceitfully - That is, I have been sadly disappointed. I looked for the language of condolence and compassion; for something to cheer my heart, and to uphold me in my trials - as weary and thirsty travelers look for water and are sadly disappointed when they come to the place where they expected to find it, and find the stream dried up. The simile used here is exquisitely beautiful, considered as a mere description of an actual occurrence in the deserts of Arabia. But its chief beauty consists in its exact adaptation to the case before him, and the point and pith of the reproof which it administers. “The fullness, strength, and noise of these temporary streams in winter, answer to the large professions made to Job in his prosperity by his friends. The dryness of the

waters at the approach of summer, resembles the failure of their friendship in time of affliction.” Scott, as quoted by Noyes.As a brook - That is, as a stream that is swelled by winter torrents, and that is dry in summer. Such streams abound in Arabia, and in the East generally. The torrents pour down from the hills in time of rain, or when swelled by the melting of the ice; but in summer they are dry, or their waters are lost in the sand. Even large streams are thus absorbed. The river Barrady, which waters Damascus, after passing to a short distance to the southeast of the city toward the Arabian deserts, is lost in the sand, or evaporated by the heat of the sun. The idea here is, that travelers in a caravan would approach the place where water had been found before, but would find the fountain dried up, or the stream lost in the sand; and when they looked for refreshment, they found only disappointment. In Arabia there are not many rivers. In Yemen, indeed, there are a few streams that flow the year round, and on the East the Euphrates has been claimed as belonging to Arabia. But most of the streams are winter torrents that become dry in summer, or rivulets that are swelled by heavy rains.An illustration of the verse before us occurs in Campbell‘s Travels in Africa. “In desert parts of Africa it has afforded much joy to fall in with a brook of water, especially when running in the direction of the journey, expecting it would prove a valuable companion. Perhaps before it accompanied us two miles it became invisible by sinking into the sand; but two miles farther along it would reappear and raise hopes of its continuance; but after running a few hundred yards, would sink finally into the sand, no more again to rise.” A comparison of a man who deceives and disappoints one to such a Stream is common in Arabia, and has given rise, according to Schultens, to many proverbs. Thus, they say of a treacherous friend, “I put no trust in thy torrent;” and, “O torrent, thy flowing subsides.” So the Scholiast on Moallakat says, “a pool or flood was called Gadyr, because travelers when they pass by it find it full of water, but when they return they find nothing there, and it seems to have treacherously betrayed them. So they say of a false man, that he is more deceitful than the appearance of water” - referring, perhaps, to the deceitful appearance of the mirage in the sands of the desert; see the notes at Isaiah 35:7.And as the stream of brooks they pass away - As the valley stream - the stream that runs along in the valley, that is filled by the mountain torrent. They pass away on the return of summer, or when the rain ceases to fall, and the

valley is again dry. So with the consolations of false friends. They cannot be depended on. All their professions are temporary and evanescent.

Verse 16Which are blackish - Or, rather, which are turbid. The word used here (קדרים qoderıym ) means to be turbid, foul, or muddy, spoken of a torrent, and then to be of a dusky color, to be dark-colored, as e. g. the skin scorched by the sun, Job 30:28; or to be dark - as when the sun is obscured; Joel 2:10; Joel 3:15. Jerome renders it, Qui timent pruinam - “which fear the frost, when the snow comes upon them.” The Septuagint renders it, “they who had venerated me now rushed upon me like snow or hoar frost, which melting at the approach of heat, it was not known whence it was.” The expression in the Hebrew means that they were rendered dark and turbid by the accumulated torrents caused by the dissolving snow and ice.By reason of the ice - When it melts and swells the streams.And wherein the snow is hid - That is, says Noyes, melts and flows into them. It refers to the melting of the snow in the spring, when the streams are swelled as a consequence of it. Snow, by melting in the spring and summer, would swell the streams, which at other times were dry. Lucretius mentions the melting of the snows on the mountains of Ethiopia, as one of the causes of the overflowing of the Nile:Forsitan Aethiopum pentrue de montibus altisCrescat, ubi in campos albas descendere ninguesTahificiss subigit radiis sol, omnia lustrans.vi. 734.Or, from the Ethiop-mountains, the bright sun,Now full matured, with deep-dissolving ray,May melt the agglomerate snows, and down the plainsDrive them, augmenting hence the incipient stream.GoodA similar description occurs in Homer, Iliad xi. 492:Ως δ οποε πληφων ποταμος πεδινδε κατεισιΧειμαρρους κατ ορεσφιν, κ. τ. λ. Hos d' hopote plethon potamos pedionde kateisi Cheimarrous kat' oresfin etc in Ovid also, Fast. ii. 219:Ecce, velut torrens andis pluvialibus auctus,

Ant hive, quae, Zephyro victa, repente fluit,Per sara, perque vias, tertur; nec, ut ante solebat,Riparum clausas margine finit aquas.

Verse 17What time - In the time; or after a time.They wax warm - Gesenius renders this word ( yezorebu יזרבו) when they became narrow, and this version has been adopted by Noyes. The word occurs nowhere else. Taylor (Concord.) renders it, “to be dissolved by the heat of the sun.” Jerome, fuerint dissipati - “in the time in which they are scattered.” The Septuagint, τακεισα Θερμης γενομενης takeisa thermes genomenes - “melting at the approach of heat.” The Chaldee, “In the time in which the generation of the deluge sinned, they were scattered.” Castell says that the word זרב zarab in the Piel, as the word in Chaldee (זרב zerab ) means “to flow”; and also that it has the same signification as צרב tsarab to become warm. In Syriac the word means to be straitened, bound, confined. On the whole, however, the connection seems to require us to understand it as it is rendered in our common translation, as meaning, that when they are exposed to the rays of a burning sun, they evaporate. They pour down from the mountains in torrents, but when they flow into burning sands, or become exposed to the intense action of the sun, they are dried up, and disappear.They vanish - Margin, “are cut off.” That is, they wander off into the sands of the desert until they are finally lost.When it is hot - Margin, “in the heat thereof.” When the summer comes, or when the rays of the sun are poured down upon them.They are consumed - Margin, “extinguished.” They are dried up, and furnish no water for the caravan.

Verse 18The paths of their way are turned aside - Noyes renders this, “The caravans turn aside to them on their way.” Good, “The outlets of their channel wind about.” Rosenmuller, “The bands of travelers direct their journey to them.” Jerome, “Involved are the paths of their steps.” According to the interpretation of Rosenmuller, Noyes, Umbreit, and others, it means that the caravans on their journey turn aside from their regular way in order to find water there; and that in doing it they go up into a desert and perish. According to the other interpretation,

it means that the channels of the stream wind along until they diminish and come to nothing. This latter I take to be the true sense of the passage, as it is undoubtedly the most poetical. It is a representation of the stream winding along in its channels, or making new channels as it flows from the mountain, until it diminishes by evaporation, and finally comes to nothing.They go to nothing - Noyes renders this very singularly, “into the desert,” - meaning that the caravans, when they suppose they are going to a place of refreshment, actually go to a desert, and thus perish. The word used here, however tohu does not תהו occur in the sense of a desert elsewhere in the Scriptures. It denotes nothingness, emptiness, vanity (see Genesis 1:2), and very appropriately expresses the nothingness into which a stream vanishes when it is dried up or lost in the sand. The sense is, that those streams wander along until they become smaller and smaller, and then wholly disappear. They deceive the traveler who hoped to find refreshment there. Streams depending on snows and storms, and having no permanent fountains, cannot be confided in. Pretended friends are like them. In times of prosperity they are full of professions, and their aid is proffered to us. But we go to them when we need their assistance, when we are like the weary and thirsty traveler, and they disappear like deceitful streams in the sands of the desert.

Verse 19The troops of Tema looked - That is, looked for the streams of water. On the situation of Tema, see Notes, Job 2:11. This was the country of Eliphaz, and the image would be well understood by him. The figure is one of exquisite beauty. It means that the caravans from Tema, in journeying through the desert, looked for those streams. They came with an expectation of finding the means of allaying their thirst. When they came there they were disappointed, for the waters had disappeared. Reiske, however, renders this, “Their tracks (the branchings of the flood) tend toward Tema;” - a translation which the Hebrew will bear, but the usual version is more correct, and is more elegant.The companies of Sheba waited for them - The “Sheba” here referred to was probably in the southern part of Arabia; see the notes at Isaiah 45:14. The idea is, that the caravans from that part of Arabia came and looked for a supply of water, and were disappointed.

Verse 20

They were confounded because they had hoped - The caravans of Tema and Sheba. The word “confounded” here means ashamed. It represents the state of feeling which one has who has met with disappointment. He is perplexed, distressed, and ashamed that he had entertained so confident hope; see the notes at Isaiah 30:5. They were downcast and sad that the waters had failed, and they looked on one another with confusion and dismay. There are few images more poetic than this, and nothing that would more strikingly exhibit the disappointment of Job, that he had looked for consolation from his friends, and had not found it. He was down-cast, distressed, and disheartened, like the travelers of Tema and of Sheba, because they had nothing to offer to console him; because he had waited for them to sustain him in his afflictions, and had been wholly disappointed.

Verse 21For now ye are as nothing - Margin, “or, Ye are like to it, or them.” In the margin also the word “nothing” is rendered “not.” This variety arises from a difference of reading in the Hebrew text, many MSS. having instead of (לא lo' ), not, (לו lo' ), to him, or to it. Which is correct, it is not easy to determine. Rosenmuller supposes that it is only a variety in writing the word לא l' where the waw is often used for.א The probability is, that it means, that they were as nothing - like the stream that had disappeared. This is the point of the comparison; and this Job now applies to his friends. They had promised much by their coming - like the streams when swollen by rains and melted ice. But now they were found to be nothing.Ye see my casting down - chathath - my being broken or crushed; my חתת calamity. Vulgate, plugam. Septuagint, τραυμα trauma wound.And are afraid - Are timid and fearful. You shrink back; you dare not approach the subject boldly, or come to me with words of consolation. You came with a professed intention to administer comfort, but your courage fails.

Verse 22Did I say, Bring unto me? - Job proceeds to state that their conduct in this had been greatly aggravated by the fact that they had come voluntarily. He had not asked them to come. He had desired no gift; no favor. He had not applied to them in any way or form for help. They had come of their own accord, and when they came they uttered only the language of severity and reproach. If he had asked them to aid him, the case would have been different. That would have

given them some excuse for interposing in the case. But now the whole was gratuitous and unasked. He did not desire their interference, and he implies by these remarks that if they could say nothing that would console him, it would have been kindness in them to have said nothing.Or, Give a reward for me of your substance? - That is, did I ask a present from you out of your property? I asked nothing. I have on no occasion asked you to interpose and aid me.

Verse 23Or, Deliver me out of the enemy‘s hand? - At no time have I called on you to rescue me from a foe.Or, Redeem me? - That is, rescue me from the hand of robbers. The meaning is, that he was in no way beholden to them; he had never called on them for assistance; and there was therefore no claim which they could now have to afflict him further by their reflections. There seems to be something peevish in these remarks; and we need not attempt to justify the spirit which dictated them.

Verse 24Teach me, and I will hold my tongue - That is, give me any real instruction, or show me what is my duty, and I will be silent. By this he means that Eliphaz had really imparted no instruction, but had dealt only in the language of reproof. The sense is, “I would willingly sit and listen where truth is imparted, and where I could be enabled to see the reason of the divine dealings. If I could be made to understand where I have erred, I would acquiesce.”

Verse 25How forcible are right words! - How weighty and impressive are words of truth! Job means that he was accustomed to feel their power, and to admit it on his soul. If their words were such, he would listen to them with profound attention, and in silence. The expression has a proverbial cast.But what doth your arguing reprove? - Or rather, what doth the reproof from you reprove? or what do your reproaches prove? Job professes a readiness to listen to words of truth and wisdom; he complains that the language of reproach used by them was not adapted to instruct his understanding or to benefit his heart. As it was, he did not feel himself convinced, and was likely to derive no advantage from what they said.

Verse 26Do ye imagine to reprove words? - A considerable variety of interpretation has occurred in regard to this verse. Dr. Good, following Schultens, supposes that the word translated wind here רוח ruach means sighs, or groans, and renders it,Would ye then take up words for reproof,The mere venting the means of despair?But Rosenmuller has well remarked that the word never has this signification. Noyes renders it,Do ye mean to censure words?The words of a man in despair are but wind.In this, he has probably expressed the true sense. This explanation was proposed by Ludov. de Dieu, and is adopted by Rosenmuller. According to this, the sense is, “Do you think it reasonable to carp at mere words? Will you pass over weighty and important arguments and facts, and dwell upon the words merely that are extorted from a man in misery? Do you not know that one in a state of despair utters many expressions which ought not to be regarded as the result of his deliberate judgment? And will you spend your time in dwelling on those words rather than on the main argument involved?” This is probably the true sense of the verse; and if so it is a complaint of Job that they were disposed to make him “an offender for a word” rather than to enter into the real merits of the case, and especially that they were not disposed to make allowances for the hasty expressions of a man almost in despair.

Verse 27Yea, ye overwhelm the fatherless - Job undoubtedly means that this should be applied to himself. He complains that they took advantage of his words, that they were disposed to pervert his meaning, and unkindly distorted what he said. The word rendered” fatherless” yathom properly יתום denotes an orphan; Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; Deuteronomy 14:29. But it is possible that it is not to be taken in this limited signification here. The word is still retained in the Arabic language - the language spoken in the country where Job lived, - where the word yathom means to be lonely, bereaved, etc. It may be that this idea occurs יתוםunder the form of the word used here, that Job was lonely and bereaved; that he was as desolate and helpless as a fatherless child; and especially that they manifested a spirit like that of those who would oppress an orphan. The word

“overwhelm” tapıylu means properly, “ye fall upon;” that is, you deal with תפילו him violently. Or, it may mean here, in the Hiphil, “you cause to fall upon,” referring to a net, and meaning, that they sprung a net for the orphan. So Rosenmuller and Noyes understand it. To do this was, in Oriental countries, regarded as a crime of special enormity, and is often so spoken of in the Bible; see the notes at Isaiah 1:17.And ye dig a pit for your friend - You act toward your friend as hunters do toward wild beasts. They dig a pit and cover it over with brushwood to conceal it, and the hunted animal, deceived, falls into it unawares. So you endeavor to entrap your friend. You lay a plan for it. You conceal your design. You contrive to drive him into the pit that you have made, and urge him on until you have caught him in the use of unguarded language, or driven him to vent expressions that cover him with confusion. Instead of throwing a mantle of charity over his frailties and infirmities, you make the most of every word, take it out of its proper connection, and attempt to overwhelm him in shame and disgrace. On the method of hunting in ancient times, see the notes at Job 18:8-10.

Verse 28Now, therefore, be content - Rosenmuller has better rendered this, “if it please you.” The sense is, “if you are willing, look upon me.” That is, “if you are disposed, you may take a careful view of me. Look me in the countenance. You can see for yourselves whether I am sincere or false. I am willing that my whole demeanor should be subjected to the utmost scrutiny.”For it is evident unto you if I lie - Margin, as in Hebrew before your face. That is, “you yourselves can see by my whole demeanor, by my sufferings, my patience, my manifest sincerity, that I am not playing the hypocrite.” Conscious of sincerity, he believed that if they would look upon him, they would be convinced that he was a sincere and an upright man.

Verse 29Return, I pray you - That is, return to the argument. Give your attention to it again. Perhaps he may have discerned a disposition in them to turn away from what he was saying, and to withdraw and leave him. Job expresses his belief that he could convince them; and he proposes more fully to state his views, if they would attend to him.

Let it not be iniquity - Let it not be considered as wrong thus to come back to the argument. Or, let it not be assumed that my sentiments are erroneous, and my heart evil. Job means, that it should not be taken for granted that he was a hypocrite; that he was conscious of sincerity, and that he was convinced that he could satisfy them of it if they would lend a listening ear. A similar sentiment he expresses in Job 19:28:But ye should say, Why persecute we him?Seeing the root of the matter is found in me.My righteousness is in it - Margin, that is, this matter. The sense is, “my complete vindication is in the argument which I propose to state. I am prepared to show that I am innocent.” On that account, he wishes them to return and attend to what he proposed to say.

Verse 30Is there iniquity in my tongue? - This is a solemn appeal to their consciences, and their own deep conviction that he was sincere. Iniquity in the tongue means falsehood, deceit, hypocrisy - that which would be expressed by the tongue.Cannot my taste discern perverse things? - Margin, palate. The word used here חך chek means properly the palate, together with the corresponding lower part of the mouth, the inside mouth. Gesenius. Hence, it means the organ of taste, residing in the mouth. The meaning is, that Job was qualified to discern what was true or false, sincere or hypocritical, just or unjust, in the same manner as the palate is fitted to discern the qualities of objects, whether bitter or sweet, pleasant or unpleasant, wholesome or unwholesome. His object is to invite attention to what he had to state on the subject. To this proposed vindication he proceeds in the following chapter, showing the greatness of his calamity, and his right, as he supposes, to complain. Their attention was gained. They did not refuse to listen to him, and he proceeds to a fuller statement of his calamity, and of the reasons why he had allowed himself to use the language of complaint. They listened without interruption until he was done, and then replied in tones of deeper severity still.

07 Chapter 7 Verse 1Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? - Margin, or, warfare. The word used here צבא tsaba' means properly a host, an army, see the notes, Isaiah

1:9; then it means warfare, or the hard service of a soldier; notes, Isaiah 40:2. Here it means that man on the earth was enlisted, so to speak, for a certain time. He had a certain and definite hard service to perform, and which he must continue to discharge until he was relieved by death. It was a service of hazard, like the life of a soldier, or of toil, like that of one who had been hired for a certain time, and who anxiously looked for the period of his release. The object of Job in introducing this remark evidently is, to vindicate himself for the wish to die which he had expressed. He maintains that it is as natural and proper for man in his circumstances to wish to be released by death, as for a soldier to desire that his term of service might be accomplished, or a weary servant to long for the shades of the evening. The Septuagint renders it, “Is not the life of man upon the earth peirateerion “ - explained by Schleusner and rendered by Good, as meaning a band of pirates. The Vulgate renders it, militia - miltary service. The sense is, that the life of man was like the hard service of a soldier; and this is one of the points of justification to which Job referred in Job 6:29-30. He maintains that it is not improper to desire that such a service should close.The days of an hireling - A man who has been hired to perform some service with a promise of a reward, and who is not unnaturally impatient to receive it. Job maintained that such was the life of man. He was looking forward to a reward, and it was not unnatural or improper to desire that that reward should be given to him.

Verse 2As a servant earnestly desireth - Margin, gapeth after. The word here שאף sha'aph means to breathe hard, to pant, to blow, and then to desire earnestly.The shadow - This may refer either to a shade in the intense heat of the day, or to the night. Nothing is more grateful in oriental countries, when the sun pours down intensely on burning sands, than the shadow of a tree, or the shade of a projecting rock. The editor of the Pictorial Bible on this verse remarks, “We think we can say, that next to water, the greatest and deepest enjoyment we could ever realize in the hot climates of the East was, when on a journey, any circumstance of the road brought us for a few minutes under some shade. Its reviving influence upon the bodily frame, and consequently upon the spirits, is inconceivable by one who has not had some experience of the kind. Often also during the hall of a caravan in the open air, when the writer has been enabled to secure a station for repose under the shelter of a rock or of an old wall, has his

own exultation and strong sense of luxurious enjoyment reminded him of this and other passages of Scripture, in which shade is mentioned as a thing punted for with intense desire.” Probably here, however, the reference is to the shades of night, the time when darkness falls upon the earth, and the servant is released from his toil. It is common in all languages to speak of night as enveloped with shadows. Thus, Virgil, En. iv. 7:Humentemque aurora polo dimoverat urnbram.The meaning of Job is, that as a servant looked impatiently for the shades of the evening when he would be dismissed from toil, so he longed for death.And as an hireling looketh - That is, he anxiously desires his work to be finished, and expects the reward of his labors. So Job looked to the reward of a life of toil and piety. Is there not here an undoubted reference to a future state? Is it not manifest that Job looked to some recompense in the future world, as real and as sure, as a hired servant looks for the reward of his toils when his work is done?

Verse 3So am I made to possess - Hebrew I am made to inherit. The meaning is, that such sad and melancholy seasons now were his only portion.Months of vanity - That is, months which were destitute of comfort; in other words, months of affliction. How long his trials had continued before this, we have no means of ascertaining. There is no reason, however, to suppose that his bodily sufferings came upon him all at once, or that they had not continued for a considerable period. It is quite probable that his expressions of impatience were the result not only of the intensity, but the continuance of his sorrows.And wearisome nights are appointed to me - Even his rest was disturbed. The time when care is usually forgotten and toil ceases, was to him a period of sleepless anxiety and distress - amal The Septuagint renders it, nights of‛ עמל pangs ( νυκτες οδυνων nuktes odunon ), expressing accurately the sense of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word עמל ‛amal is commonly applied to intense sorrow, to trouble and pain of the severest kind, such as the pains of parturition; see the notes at Isaiah 53:11.

Verse 4

When I lie down - I find no comfort and no rest on my bed. My nights are long, and I am impatient to have them passed, and equally so is it with the day. This is a description which all can understand who have been laid on a bed of pain.And the night be gone - Margin, evening be measured. Herder renders this, “the night is irksome to me.” The word rendered night ( ereb‛ ערב) properly means the early part of the night, until it is succeeded by the dawn. Thus, in Genesis 1:5,” And the evening (ערב ‛ereb ) and the morning were the first day.” Here it means the portion of the night which is before the dawning of the aurora - the night. The word rendered “be gone” and in the margin “be measured” (מדד mıddad ), has been variously rendered. The verb מדד madad means to stretch, to extend, to measure; and, according to Gesenius, the form of the word used here is a noun meaning flight, and the sense is, “when shall be the flight of the night?” He derives it from nadad to נדד move, to flee, to flee away. So Rosenmuller explains it. The expression is poetic, meaning, when shall the night be gone?I am full of tossings to and fro - (נדדים nadudıym ). A word from the same root. It means uneasy motions, restlessness. He found no quiet repose on his bed.Unto the dawning - nesheph from נשף ,nashaph to breathe; hence נשף the evening twilight because the breezes blow, or seem to breathe, and then it means also the morning twilight, the dawn. Dr. Stock renders it, “until the morning breeze.”

Verse 5My flesh is clothed with worms - Job here undoubtedly refers to his diseased state, and this is one of the passages by which we may learn the nature of his complaint; compare the notes at Job 2:7. There is reference here to the worms which are produced in ulcers and in other forms of disease. Michaelis remarks that such effects are produced often in the elephantiasis. Bochart, Hieroz. P. II, Lib. IV. c. xxvi. pp. 619621, has abundantly proved that such effects occur in disease, and has mentioned several instances where death ensued from this cause; compare Acts 12:23. The same thing would often happen - and particularly in hot climates - if it were not for the closest care and attention in keeping running sores as clean as possible.And clods of dust - Accumulated on the ulcers which covered his whole body. This effect would be almost unavoidable. Dr. Good renders this, “worms and the imprisoning dust,” and supposes that the image is taken from the grave, and that

the idea in the whole passage is that of one who is “dead while he lives;” that is, of one who is undergoing putrefaction before he is buried. But the more common and correct interpretation is that which refers it to the accumulated filth attending a loathsome disease; see Job 2:8. The word which is used here and rendered clods ( gush גוש) means a lump of earth or dust. Septuagint, βωλακας γης bolakas ges Vulgate, sordes pulveris,” clods of earth.” The whole verse is rendered by the Septuagint,” My body swarms with the putrefaction of worms, and I moisten the clods of earth with the ichor ( ιχωρος ichoros ) of ulcers.”My skin is broken - - רגע raga‛ This word means, to make afraid, to terrify; and then to shrink together from fear, or to contract. Here it means, according to Gesenius, that “the skin came together and healed, and then broke forth again and ran with pus.” Jerome renders it, aruit - dries up. Herder, “my skin becometh closed.” Dr. Good, “my skin becometh stiff;” and carries out his idea that the reference here is to the stiffened and rigid appearance of the body after death. Doederlin supposes that it refers to the rough and horrid appearance of the skin in the elephantiasis, when it becomes rigid and frightful by the disease. Jarchi renders it, cutis mea corrugata - my skin is rough, or filled with wrinkles. This seems to me to be the idea, that it was filled with wrinkles and corrugations; that it became stiff, fixed, frightful, and was such as to excite terror in the beholder.And become loathsome - Gesenius, “runs again with pus.” The word here used ma'as means properly to reject, contemn, despise. A second sense which it מאסhas is, to melt, to run like water; Psalm 58:7, “Let them melt away ימאסו) yıma'asu ) as waters.” But the usual meaning is to be preferred here. His skin became abhorrent and loathsome in the sight of others.

Verse 6My days are swifter than a weaver‘s shuttle - That is, they are short and few. He does not here refer so much to the rapidity with which they were passing away as to the fact that they would soon be gone, and that he was likely to be cut off without being permitted to enjoy the blessings of a long life; compare the notes at Isaiah 38:12. The weaver‘s shuttle is the instrument by which the weaver inserts the filling in the woof. With us few things would furnish a more striking emblem of rapidity than the speed with which a weaver throws his shuttle from one side of the web to the other. It would seem that such was the fact among the ancients, though the precise manner in which they wove their cloth, is unknown. It was common to compare life with a web, which was filled up by the successive

days. The ancient Classical writers spoke of it as a web woven by the Fates. We can all feel the force of the comparison used here by Job, that the days which we live fly swift away. How rapidly is one after another added to the web of life! How soon will the whole web be filled up, and life be closed! A few more shoots of the shuttle and all will be over, and our life will be cut off, as the weaver removes one web from the loom to make way for another. How important to improve the fleeting moments, and to live as if we were soon to see the rapid shuttle flying for the last time!And are spent without hope - Without hope of recovery, or of future happiness on earth. It does not mean that he had no hope of happiness in the world to come. But such were his trials here, and so entirely had his comforts been removed, that he had no prospect of again enjoying life.

Verse 7O remember - This is evidently an address to God. In the anguish of his soul Job turns his eye and his heart to his Maker, and urges reasons why he should close his life. The extent of his sufferings, and the certainty that he must die Job 7:9-10, are the reasons on which he dwells why his life should be closed, and he released. The language is respectful, but it is the expression of deep anguish and sorrow.That my life is wind - Life is often compared with a vapor, a shadow, a breath. The language denotes that it is frail, and soon passed - as the breeze blows upon us, and soon passes by; compare Psalm 78:39:For he remembered that they were but flesh;A wind that passeth away and cometh not again.Mine eye shall no more - Margin, as in Hebrew not return. The idea is, that if he was cut off, he would not return again to behold the pleasant scenes of this life.See good - Margin, To see, that is, to enjoy. The sense is that he would no more be permitted to look upon the things which now so much gratified the sight, and gave so much pleasure. There is some resemblance here to the feelings expressed by Hezekiah in his apprehension of death; see the notes at Isaiah 38:10-11.

Verse 8

The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no more - I shall be cut off from all my friends - one of the things which most distresses people when they come to die.Thine eyes are upon me, and I am not - see Job 7:21. Dr. Good renders this, “let thine eye be upon me, and I am nothing.” Herder, “thine eye will seek me, but I am no more.” According to this the sense is, that he was soon to be removed from the place where he had dwelt, and that should he be sought there he could not be found. He would seem to represent God as looking for him, and not finding him; see Job 7:21. The margin has,” I can live no longer.” It may be possible that this is the meaning, that God had fixed an intense gaze upon him, and that he could not survive it. If this is the sense, then it accords with the descriptions given of the majesty of God everywhere in the Scriptures - that nothing could endure His presence, that even the earth trembles, and the mountains melt away, at his touch. Thus, in Psalm 104:32:He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth;He toucheth the hills, and they smoke.Compare the representation of the power of the eye in Job 16:9:He teareth me in his wrath who hateth me;He gnasheth upon me with his teethMine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me.On the whole, I think it probable that this is the sense here. There is an energy in the original which is greatly enfeebled in the common translation. God had fixed his eyes upon Job, and he at once disappeared; compare Revelation 20:11: “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them.”

Verse 9As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away - This image is taken from the light and fleecy clouds, which become smaller and smaller until they wholly vanish. For an illustration of a similar phrase, see the notes at Isaiah 44:22.To the grave - - שאול she'ol Septuagint, εις αδην eis haden to Hades. The word may mean grave, or the place of departed spirits; see Isaiah 5:14, note; Isaiah 14:9, note; compare the notes at Job 10:21-22. Either signification will apply here.Shall come up no more - Shall no more live on the earth. It would be pressing this too far to adduce it as proving that Job did not believe in the doctrine of the

resurrection. The connection here requires us to understand him as meaning only that he would not appear again on the earth.

Verse 10He shall return no more to his house - He shall not revisit his family. Job is dwelling on the calamity of death, and one of the circumstances most deeply felt in the prospect of death is, that a man must leave his own house to return no more. The stately palaces that he has built; the splendid halls which he has adorned; the chamber where he slept; the cheerful fireside where he met his family; the place at the table which he occupied, he will revisit no more. His tread will be no more heard; his voice will no more awaken delight in the happy family group; the father and husband returning from his daily toil will no more give pleasure to the joyous circle. Such is death. It removes us from all earthly comforts, takes us away from home and kindred - from children and friends, and bids us go alone to an unknown world. Job felt that it was a sad and gloomy thing. And so it is, unless there is a well-founded hope of a better world. It is the gospel only that can make us willing to leave our happy dwellings, and the embraces of kindred and friends, and to tread the lonely path to the regions of the dead. The friend of God has a brighter home in heaven. He has more numerous and better friends there. He has there a more splendid and happy mansion than any here on earth. He will be engaged in more blissful scenes there, than can be enjoyed by the most happy fireside here; will have more cheerful employments there, than any which can be found on earth; and will have higher and purer pleasures there, than can be found in parks, and lawns, and landscapes; in splendid halls, in music, and the festive board; in literary pursuits, and in the love of kindred. How far Job had the means of consolation from such reflections as these, it is not easy now to determine. The probability, however, is, that his views were comparatively dim and obscure.

Verse 11Therefore I will not refrain my mouth - The idea in this verse is, “such is my distress at the prospect of dying, that I cannot but express it. The idea of going away from all my comforts, and of being committed to the grave, to revisit the earth no more, is so painful that I cannot but give vent to my feelings.”

Verse 12

Am I a sea? - That is, “am I like a raging and tumultuous sea, that it is necessary to restrain and confine me? The sense of the verse is, that God had treated him as if he were untamable and turbulent, as if he were like the restless ocean, or as if he were some monster, which could be restrained within proper limits only by the stern exercise of power. Dr. Good, following Reiske, renders this, “a savage beast,” understanding by the Hebrew word ים yam a sea-monster instead of the sea itself, and then any ferocious beast, as the wild buffalo. But it is clear, I think, that the word never has this meaning. It means properly the sea; then a lake or inland sea, and then it is applied to any great river that spreads out like the ocean. Thus, it is applied both to the Nile, and to the Euphrates; see Isaiah 11:15, note; Isaiah 19:15, note. Herder here renders it, “the river and its crocodile,” and this it seems to me is probably the meaning. Job asks whether he is like the Nile, overflowing its banks, and rolling on impetuously to the sea, and, unless restrained, sweeping everything away. Some such flood of waters, and not a savage beast, is undoubtedly intended here.Or a whale - ,tannıyn Jerome תנין cetus - a whale. The Septuagint renders it, δρακων drakon a dragon. The Chaldee paraphrases it, “Am I condemned as the Egyptians were, who were condemned and submerged in the Red sea; or as Pharaoh, who was drowned in the midst of it, in his sins, that thou placest over me a guard?” Herder renders it, “the crocodile.” On the meaning of the word, see Isaiah 13:22, note; Isaiah 51:9, note. It refers here probably to a crocodile, or some similar monster, that was found either in the Nile or in the branches of the Red sea. There is no evidence that it means a whale. Harmer (Obs. iii. 536, Ed. Lond. 1808) supposes that the crocodile is meant, and observes that “Crocodiles are very terrible to the inhabitants of Egypt; when, therefore, they appear, they watch them with great attention, and take proper precautions to secure them, so as that they should not be able to avoid the deadly weapons the Egyptians afterward make use of to kill them.” According to this, the expression in Job refers to the anxious care which is evinced by the inhabitants of countries where crocodiles abound to destroy them. Every opportunity would be anxiously watched for, and great solicitude would be manifested to take their lives. In countries, too, which were subject to inundation from waters, great anxiety would be evinced. The rising waters would be carefully watched, lest they should burst over all barriers, and sweep away fences, houses, and towns. Such a constant vigilance Job represents the Almighty as keeping over him - watching him as if he were a swelling, roaring, and ungovernable torrent, or as if he were a frightful

monster of the deep, whom he was anxious to destroy. In both respects the language is forcible, and in both instances scarcely less irreverent than it is forcible. For a description of the crocodile, see the notes at Job 41.

Verse 13When I say, My bed shall comfort me - The idea in this verse and the following is, that there was no intermission to his sorrows. Even the times when people usually sought repose were to him times of distress. Then he was disturbed and alarmed by the most frightful dreams and visions, and sleep fled from him.Shall ease my complaint - The word rendered “shall ease” yısa' means ישא rather, shall bear; that is, shall lighten or sustain. The meaning is, that he sought relief on his bed.

Verse 14Then thou scarest me - This is an address to God. He regarded him as the source of his sorrows, and he expresses his sense of this in language indeed very beautiful, but far from reverence.With dreams - see Job 7:4. A similar expression occurs in Ovid:Ut puto, cam requies medicinaque publica curae,Somnus adest, soliris nox venit orba malis,Somnia me terrent. veros imitantia casus,Et vigilant sensus in mea damna mei.Do Ponto, Lib. i. Eleg. 2.And terrifiest me through visions - See the notes at Job 4:13. This refers to the visions of the fancy, or to frightful appearances in the night. The belief of such night-visions was common in the early ages, and Job regarded them as under the direction of God, and as being designed to alarm him.

Verse 15So that my soul - So that I; the soul being put for himself.Chooseth strangling - Dr. Good renders it “suffocation,” and supposes that Job alludes to the oppression of breathing, produced by what is commonly called the night-mare, and that he means that he would prefer the sense of suffocation excited at such a time to the terrible images before his mind. Herder renders it, death. Jerome, suspendium. The Septuagint, “Thou separatest ( απαλλαξεις apallaceis ) my life from my spirit, and my bones from death;” but what idea they

attached to it, it is impossible now to tell. The Syriac renders it, “Thou choosest my soul from perdition, and my bones from death.” The word rendered strangling ( machanaq מחנק) is from chanaq to חנק be narrow, strait, close; and then means to strangle, to throttle, Nahum 2:12; 2 Samuel 17:23 . Here it means death; and Job designs to say that he would prefer even the most violent kind of death to the life that he was then leading. I see no evidence that the idea suggested by Dr. Good is to be found in the passage.And death rather than my life - Margin, as in Hebrew, bones. There has been great variety in the exposition of this part of the verse. Herder renders it, “death rather than this frail body.” Rosenmuller and Noyes, “death rather than my bones;” that is, he preferred death to such an emaciated body as he then had, to the wasted skeleton which was then all that he had left to him. This is probably the true sense. Job was a sufferer in body and in soul. His flesh was wasting away, his body was covered with ulcers, and his mind was harassed with apprehensions. By day he had no peace, and at night he was terrified by alarming visions and spectres; and he preferred death in any form to such a condition.

Verse 16I loathe it - I loathe my life as it is now. It has become a burden and I desire to part with it, and to go down to the grave. There is, however, considerable variety in the interpretation of this. Noyes renders it, “I am wasting away.” Dr. Good connects it with the previous verse and understands by it, “death in comparison with my sufferings do I despise.” The Syriac is, - it fails to me, that is, I fail, or my powers are wasting away. But the Hebrew word ma'as means properly to מאס loathe and contemn (see the note at Job 7:5), and the true idea here is expressed in the common version. The sense is, “my life is painful and offensive, and I wish to die.”I would not live alway - As Job used this expression, there was doubtless somewhat of impatience and of an improper spirit. Still it contains a very important sentiment, and one that may be expressed in the highest state of just religious feeling. A man who is prepared for heaven should not and will not desire to live here always. It is better to depart and to be with Christ, better to leave a world of imperfection and sin, and to go to a world of purity and love. On this text, fully and beautifully illustrating its meaning, the reader may consult a sermon by Dr. Dwight. Sermons, Edinburgh, 1828, vol. ii. 275ff. This world is full of

temptations and of sin; it is a world where suffering abounds; it is the infancy of our being; it is a place where our knowledge is imperfect, and where the affections of the best are comparatively grovelling; it is a world where the good are often persecuted, and where the bad are triumphant; and it is better to go to abodes where all these will be unknown. Heaven is a more desirable place in which to dwell than the earth; and if we had a clear view of that world, and proper desires, we should pant to depart and to be there. Most people live as though they would live always here if they could do it, and multitudes are forming their plans as if they expected thus to live. They build their houses and form their plans as if life were never to end. It is the privilege of the Christian, however, to EXPECT to die. Not wishing to live always here, he forms his plans with the anticipation that all which he has must soon be left; and he is ready to loose his hold on the world the moment the summons comes. So may we live; so living, it will be easy to die. The sentiments suggested by this verse have been so beautifully versified in a hymn by Muhlenberg, that I will copy it here:I would not live alway; I ask not to stayWhere storm after storm rises dark o‘er the way;The few fleeting mornings that dawn on us hereAre enough for life‘s sorrows - enough for its cheer.I would not live alway; no, welcome the tomb;Since Jesus hath lain there, I dread not its gloom;There sweet be my rest, till he bid me arise,To hail him in triumph descending the skies.Who, who would live alway, away from his God,Away from yon heaven, that blissful abode,Where rivers of pleasure flow o‘er the bright plains,And the noontide of glory eternally reigns?Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet,Their Saviour and brethren transported to greet;While anthems of rapture unceasingly roll,And the smile of the Lord is the feast of the soul.Let me alone - This is an address to God. It means, “cease to afflict me. Suffer me to live out my little length of life with some degree of ease. It is short at best, and I have no desire that it should always continue.” This sentiment he illustrates in the following verses.

For my days are vanity - They are as nothing, and are unworthy the notice of God. Life is a trifle, and I am not anxious that it should be prolonged. Why then may I not be suffered to pass my few days without being thus afflicted and pained?

Verse 17What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? - That thou shouldst make him great, or that thou shouldst regard him as of so great importance as to fix thine eye attentively upon him. The idea here is, that it was unworthy the character of so great a being as God to bestow so much time and attention on a creature so insignificant as man; and especially that man could not be of so much importance that it was necessary for God to watch all his defects with vigilance, and take special pains to mark and punish all his offences. This question might be asked in another sense, and with another view. Man is so insignificant compared with God, that it may be asked why he should so carefully provide for his needs? Why make so ample provision for his welfare? Why institute measures so amazing and so wonderful for his recovery from sin? The answers to all these questions must be substantially the same.(1) It is a part of the great plan of a condescending God. No insect is so small as to be beneath his notice. On the humblest and feeblest animalcula a care is bestowed in its formation and support as if God had nothing else to regard or provide for.(2) Man is of importance. He has an immortal soul, and the salvation of that soul is worth all which it costs, even when it costs the blood of the Son of God.(3) A creature who sins, always makes himself of importance. The murderer has an importance in the view of the community which he never had before. All good citizens become interested to arrest and punish him. There is no more certain way for a man to give consequence to himself, than to violate the laws, and to subject himself to punishment. An offending member of a family has an importance which he had not before, and all eyes are turned to him with deep interest. So it is with man - a part of the great family of God.(4) A sufferer is a being of importance, and man as a sufferer is worthy of the notice of God. However feeble may be the powers of anyone, or humble his rank, yet if he suffers, and especially if he is likely to suffer forever, he becomes at once an object of the highest importance: Such is man; a sufferer here, and liable to eternal pain hereafter; and hence, the God of mercy has interposed to visit

him, and to devise a way to rescue him from his sorrows, and from eternal death. The Syriac renders this, “What is man, that thou shouldst destroy him?” - but the Hebrew means. “to magnify him, to make him great or of importance.”That thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? - Not with affection, but to punish him - for so the expression in this connection evidently means. The phrase itself might mean, “Why shouldst thou love him?” - implying that there was nothing in a creature so insignificant that could render him a proper object of the divine regard. But as used here by Job it means, “Why dost thou fix thy attention upon him so closely - marking the slightest offence, and seeming to take a special pleasure in inflicting pain and torture?” The Psalmist makes use of almost the same language, and not improbably copied it from this, though he employs it in a somewhat different sense. As used by him, it means that it was wonderful that the God who made the heavens should condescend to notice a creature so insignificant as man.When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers;The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;What is man, that thou art mindful of him?And the son of man, that thou visitest him:Psalm 8:3-4.

Verse 18And that thou shouldest visit him? - That is, for the purpose of inflicting pain. This language Job intends undoubtedly to be applicable to himself, and he asks with impatience why God should take a pleasure in visiting with suffering each returning day a creature like him?Every morning - Why is there no intermission even for a day? Why does not God allow one morning, or one moment, to pass without inflicting pain on a creature so feeble and so frail?And try him - Or, prove him; to wit, by afflictions.Every moment - Constantly; without intermission.

Verse 19How long wilt thou not depart? - How long is this to continue? The same word occurs in Job 14:6. The word rendered “depart” sha‛ah means to look, to שעה look around, and then to look away from anyone or anything. The idea here is, that God had fixed his eyes upon Job, and he asks with anxiety, how long this

was to continue, and when he would turn his eyes away; compare the notes at Job 7:8. Schultens supposes that the metaphor here is taken from combatants, who never take their eyes from their antagonists.Till I swallow down my spittle - For the shortest time. But there has been considerable variety in the explanation of this phrase. Herder renders it, “Until I draw my breath.” Noyes, “Until I have time to breathe;” but he acknowledges that he has substituted this for the proverb which occurs in the original. The Hebrew is literally rendered in the common version, and the proverb is retained in Arabia to the present day. The meaning is, Give me a little respite; allow me a little time; as we would say, Suffer me to breathe. “This,” says Burder, “is a proverb among the Arabians to the present day, by which they understand, Give me leave to rest after my fatigue. This is the favor which Job complains is not granted to him. There are two instances which illustrate this passage (quoted by Schultens) in Harris‘s Narratives entitled the Assembly. One is of a person, who, when eagerly pressed to give an account of his travels, answered with impatience, ‹Let me swallow down my spittle, for my journey hath fatigued me.‘ The other instance is of a quick return made to a person who used the proverb. ‹Suffer me, ‹ said the person importuned, ‹to swallow down my spittle;‘ to which the friend replied, ‹You may, if you please, swallow down even the Tigris and the Euphrates; ‹ that is, You may take what time you please.”The expression is proverbial, and corresponds to ours when we say, “in the twinkling of an eye,” or, “until I can catch my breath;” that is, in the briefest interval. Job addresses this language to God. There is much impatience in it, and much that a pious man should not employ; but we are to remember that Job was beset with special trials, and that he had not the views of the divine existence and perfections, the promises and the high hopes, which as Christians we have under the fuller light of revelation; and before harshly condemning him we should put ourselves in his situation, and ask ourselves how we would be likely to think and feel and speak if we were in the same circumstances.

Verse 20I have sinned - חטאתי chata'tıy This is a literal translation, and as it stands in the common version it is the language of a penitent - confessing that he had erred, and making humble acknowledgment of his sins. That such a confession became Job, and that he would be willing to admit that he was a sinner, there can be no doubt; but the connection seems rather to require a different sense - a sense

implying that though he had sinned, yet his offences could not be such as to require the notice which God had taken of them. Accordingly this interpretation has been adopted by many, and the Hebrew will bear the construction. It may be rendered as a question, “Have I sinned; what did I against thee” Herder. Or, the sense may be, “I have sinned. I admit it. Let this be conceded. But what can that be to a being like God, that he should take such notice of it? Have I injured him? Have I deserved these heavy trials? Is it proper that he should make me a special mark, and direct his severest judgments against me in this manner?” compare the notes at Job 35:6-8. The Syriac renders it in this manner, “If I have sinned, what have I done to thee?” So the Arabic, according to Walton. So the Septuagint, Ει εγω ημαρτον Ei ego hemarton - “if I have sinned.” This expresses the true sense. The object is not so much to make a penitent confession, as it is to say, that on the worst construction of the case, on the admission of the truth of the charge, he had not deserved the severe inflictions which he had received at the hand of God.What shall I do unto thee? - Or, rather, what have I done unto thee? How can my conduct seriously affect thee? It will not mar thy happiness, affect thy peace, or in any way injure a being so great as God. This sentiment is often felt by people - but not often so honestly expressed.O thou Preserver of men - Or, rather, “O thou that dost watch or observe men.” The word rendered “Preserver” natsar which נצר notser is a participle from נצר means, according to Gesenius, to watch, to guard, to keep, and is used here in the sense of observing one‘s faults; and the idea of Job is, that God closely observed the conduct of people; that he strictly marked their faults, and severely punished them; and he asks with impatience, and evidently with improper feeling, why he thus closely watched people. So it is understood by Schultens, Rosenmuller, Dr. Good, Noyes, Herder, Kennicott, and others. The Septuagint renders it, “who knowest the mind of men?”Why hast thou set me as a mark? - The word rendered “mark” מפגע mıphga‛ means properly that which one impinges against - from paga‛ to impinge פגע against, to meet, to rush upon anyone - and here means, why has God made me such an object of attack or assault? The Septuagint renders it, κατεντευκτην σου katenteukten sou “an accuser of thee.”So that I am a burden to myself - The Septuagint renders this, επι σοι φορτιον epi soi phortion a burden to thee. The copy from which they translated evidently had עליך ‛aleyka - to thee, instead of alay - to me, as it is now read in the‛ עלי

Hebrew. “The Masoretes also place this among the eighteen passages which they say were altered by transcribers.” Noyes. But the Received Text is sustained by all the versions except the Septuagint and by all the Hebrew manuscripts hitherto examined, and is doubtless the true reading. The sense is plain, that life had become a burden to Job. He says that God had made him the special object of his displeasure, and that his condition was insupportable. That there is much in this language which is irreverent and improper no one can doubt, and it is not possible wholly to vindicate it. Nor are we called to do it by any view which we have of the nature of inspiration. He was a good, but not a perfect man. These expressions are recorded, not for our imitation, but to show what human nature is. Before harshly condemning him, however, we should ask what we would be likely to do in his circumstances; we should remember also, that he had few of the truths and promises to support him which we have.

Verse 21And why dost thou not pardon my transgression? - Admitting that I have sinned Job 7:20, yet why dost thou not forgive me? I shall soon pass away from the land of the living. I may be sought but I shall not be found. No one would be injured by my being pardoned - since I am so short-lived, and so unimportant in the scale of being. No one can be benefited by pursuing a creature of a day, such as I am, with punishment. Such seems to be the meaning of this verse. It is the language of complaint, and is couched in language filled with irreverence. Still it is language such as awakened and convicted sinners often use, and expresses the feelings which often pass through their hearts. They admit that they are sinners. They know that they must be pardoned or they cannot be saved. They are distressed at the remembrance of guilt, and under this state of mind, deeply convicted and distressed, they ask with a complaining spirit why God does not pardon them? Why does he allow them to remain in this state of agitation, suspense, and deep distress? Who could be injured by their being forgiven? Of what consequence to others can it be that they should not be forgiven? How can God be benefited by his not pardoning them? It may not be easy to answer these questions in a manner wholly satisfactory; but perhaps the following may be some of the reasons why Job had not the evidence of forgiveness which he now desired, and why the convicted sinner has not. The main reason is, that they are not in a state of mind to make it proper to forgive them.

(1) There is a feeling that they have a claim on God for pardon, or that it would be wrong for God not to pardon them. When people feel that they have a claim on God for pardon, they cannot be forgiven. The very notion of pardon implies that it must be when there is no claim existing or felt.(2) There is no proper submission to God - to his views, his terms, his plan. In order that pardon may be extended to the guilty, there should be acquiescence in God‘s own terms, and time, and mode. The sinner must resign himself into his hands, to be forgiven or not as he pleases - feeling that the whole question is lodged in his bosom, and that if he should not forgive, still it would be right, and his throne would be pure. In particular, under the Christian method of pardon, there must be entire acquiescence in the plan of salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ; a willingness to accept of forgiveness, not on the ground of personal claim, but on the ground of his merits; and it is because the convicted sinner is not willing to be pardoned in this way, that he remains unforgiven. There should be a feeling, also, that it would be right for God to pardon others, if he pleases, even though we are not saved; and it is often because the convicted sinner is not willing that that should be done, because he feels that it would be wrong in God to save others and not him, that he is not forgiven. The sinner is often suffered to remain in this state until he is brought to acquiesce in the right of a sovereign God to save whom he pleases.(3) There is a complaining spirit - and that is a reason why the sinner is not forgiven. That was manifestly the case with Job; and when that exists, how can God forgive? How can a parent pardon an offending child, when he is constantly complaining of his injustice and of the severity of his government? This very spirit is a new offence, and a new reason why he should be punished. So the awakened sinner murmurs. He complains of the government of God as too severe; of his law, as too strict; of his dealings, as harsh and unkind. He complains of his sufferings, and thinks they are wholly beyond his deserts. He complains of the doctrines of the Bible as mysterious, incomprehensible, and unjust. In this state how can he be forgiven? God often suffers the awakened sinner, therefore, to remain under conviction for sin, until he is willing to acquiesce in all his claims, and to submit without a complaint; and then, and not until then, he extends forgiveness to the guilty and troubled spirit.For now shall I sleep in the dust - On the word sleep, as applied to death, see the notes at Job 3:13. The meaning is, that he was soon to die. He urges the shortness of the time which remained to him as a reason why his afflictions

should be lightened, and why he should be pardoned. If God had anything that he could do for him, it must be done soon. But only a brief period remained, and Job seems to be impatient lest the whole of his life should be gone, and he should sleep in the dust without evidence that his sins were pardoned. Olympiodorus, as quoted by Rosenmuller, expresses the sense in the following manner: “If, therefore, I am so short-lived (or momentary, προσκαιρος proskairos ) and obnoxious to death, and must die after a short time, and shall no more arise, as if from sleep, why dost not thou suffer the little space of life to be free from punishment?”And thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be - That is, thou shalt seek to find me after I have slept in the dust, as if with the expectation that I should wake, but I shall not be found. My sleep will be perpetual, and I shall no more return to the land of the living. The idea seems to be, that if God were to show him any favor, it must be done soon. His death, which must happen soon, would put it out of the power even of God to show him mercy on earth, if he should relent and be inclined to favor him. He seems not to doubt that God would be disposed yet to show him favor; that he would be inclined to pardon him, and to relax the severity of his dealings with him, but he says that if it were done it must be done soon, and seems to apprehend that it would be delayed so long that it could not be done. The phrase “in the morning” here is used with reference to the sleep which he had just mentioned.We sleep at night, and awake and arise in the morning. Job says it would not be so with him in the sleep of death. He would awake no more; he could no more be found. - In this chapter there is much language of bitter complaint, and much which we cannot justify. It should not be taken as a model for our language when we are afflicted, though Job may have only expressed what has passed through the heart of many an afflicted child of God. We should not judge him harshly. Let us ask ourselves how we would have done if we had been in similar circumstances. Let us remember that he had comparatively few of the promises which we have to comfort us, and few of the elevated views of truth as made known by revelation, which we have to uphold us in trial. Let us be thankful that when we suffer, promises and consolations meet us on every hand. The Bible is open before us - rich with truth, and bright with promise.Let us remember that death is not as dark and dismal to us as it was to the pious in the time of the patriarchs - and that the grave is not now to us as dark and chilly, and gloomy, and comfortless an abode. To their view, the shadow of death

cast a melancholy chillness over all the regions of the dead; to us the tomb is enlightened by Christian hope. The empire of Death has been invaded, and his power has been taken away. Light has been shed around the tomb, and the grave to us is the avenue to immortal life; the pathway on which the lamp of salvation shines, to eternal glory. Let us not complain, therefore, when we are afflicted, as if the blessing were long delayed, or as if it could not be conferred should we soon die. If withheld here, it will be imparted in a better world, and we should be willing to bear trials in this short life, with the sure promise that God will meet and bless us when we pass the confines of life, and enter the world of glory.

08 Chapter 8 Verse 1Then answered Bildad the Shuhite - ; see the notes at Job 2:11.

Verse 2How long wilt thou speak these things? - The flyings of murmuring and complaint, such as he had uttered in the previous chapters.The words of thy mouth be like a strong wind? - The Syriac and Arabic (according to Walton) render this, “the spirit of pride fill thy mouth.” The Septuagint renders it, “The spirit of thy mouth is profuse of words” - πολυρρημον polurremon But the common rendering is undoubtedly correct, and the expression is a very strong and beautiful one. His language of complaint and murmuring was like a tempest. It swept over all barriers, and disregarded all restraint. The same figure is found in Aristophanes, Ran. 872, as quoted by Schultens, Τυφως εχβαιειν παρασκεναξεται Tuphos ekbainein paraskeuacetai - a tempest of words is preparing to burst forth. And in Silius Italicus, xxi. 581:- qui tanta superboFacta sonas ore, et spumanti turbine perflasIgnorantum aures.The Chaldee renders it correctly זעפא רבא - a great tempest.

Verse 3Doth God pervert judgment? - That is, Does God afflict people unjustly? Does he show favor to the evil, and punish the good? Bildad here undoubtedly refers to Job, and supposes that he had brought this charge against God. But he had not done it in so many words. He had complained of the severity of his sufferings,

and had indulged in irreverent language toward God. But he had not advanced the charge openly that God had perverted right. Bildad strenuously maintains that God would do right. His argument is based on the supposition that God would deal with people in this life according to their character; and thus he infers that Job must have been guilty of some great wickedness, that punishment should come upon him in this manner.

Verse 4If thy children have sinned against him - Bildad here assumes that the children of Job had been wicked, and had been cut off in their sins. This must have cut him to the quick, for there was nothing which a bereaved father would feel more acutely than this. The meaning here is somewhat weakened by the word “if.” The Hebrew ım is' אם rather to be taken in the sense of “since” - assuming it as an indisputable point, or taking it for granted. It was not a supposition that if they should now do it, certain other consequences would follow; but the idea is, that since they had been cut off in their sins, if Job would even now seek God with a proper spirit, he might be restored to prosperity, though his beginning should be small; Job 8:7.And he have cast them away - Bildad supposes that they had been disowned by God, and had been put to death.For their transgression - Margin, in the hand of their. The Hebrew is, by the hand of their transgression; i. e, their sin has been the cause of it, or it has been by the instrumentality of their sin. What foundation Bildad had for this opinion, derived from the life and character of the sons of Job, we have no means of ascertaining. The probability is, however, that he had learned in general that they had been cut off; and that, on the general principle which he maintained, that God deals with men in this life according to their character, he inferred that they must have been distinguished for wickedness. Men not unfrequently argue in this way when sudden calamity comes upon others.

Verse 5If thou wouldest seek unto God betimes - If thou wouldest do it now. If even on the supposition that your sons have thus perished, and that God has come out in judgment against your family, you would look to God, you might be restored to favor. The word rendered “seek betimes” ( shachar שחר) means literally to seek in the morning, to seek early; and then, to make it the first

business. It is derived from the word meaning aurora (שחר shachar ) and has reference to the early light of the morning, and hence, to an early seeking. It may be applied to seeking him in early life, or as the first thing - looking to him immediately when help is needed, or before we apply to anyone else; compare Proverbs 7:15; Proverbs 8:17; Proverbs 13:24; Job 24:5; Psalm 63:1; Psalm 78:34; Isaiah 26:9; Hosea 5:15; compare the advice of Eliphaz, Job 5:8.

Verse 6If thou wert pure and upright - There is something especially severe and caustic in this whole speech of Bildad. He first assumes that the children of Job were cut off for impiety, and then takes it for granted that Job himself was not a pure and upright man. This inference he seems to have derived partly from the fact that he had been visited with so heavy calamities, and partly from the sentiments which Job had himself expressed. Nothing could be more unjust and severe, however, than to take it for granted that he was a hypocrite, and then proceed to argue as if that were a settled point. He does not make it a supposition that possibly Job might have erred - which would not have been improper; but he proceeds to argue as if it were a point about which there could be no hesitation.He would awake for thee - He would arouse or excite himself יעיר ya‛ır on thy account. The image is that of arousing oneself from sleep or inactivity to aid another; and the idea is, that God had, as it were, slumbered over the calamities of Job, or had suffered them to come without interposing to prevent them, but that he would arouse himself if Job were pure, and would call upon him for aid.And make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous - That is, if thy habitation should become righteous now, he would make it prosperous. Hitherto, is the idea of Bildad, it has been a habitation of wickedness. Thy children have been wicked, and are now cut off. Thou thyself hast been a wicked man, and in consequence art afflicted. If now thou wouldest become pure and seek unto God, then God would make thy habitation prosperous. What could more try the patience of a sufferer than such cold and unfeeling insinuations? And what could more beautifully illustrate the nature of true courtesy, than to sit unmoved and hear such remarks? It was by forbearance in such circumstances eminently that Job showed his extraordinary patience.

Verse 7

Though thy beginning was small - On the supposition that the children of Job had been cut off, his family now was small. Yet Bildad says, that if he were to begin life again, even with so small a family, and in such depressed and trying circumstances, if he were a righteous man he might hope for returning prosperity.Yet thy latter end - From this, it is evident that Job was not now regarded as an old man. He would still have the prospect of living many years. Some have supposed, however that the meaning here is, that his former prosperity should appear small compared with that which he would hereafter enjoy if he were pure and righteous. So Noyes and Rosenmuller interpret it. But it seems to me that the former interpretation is the correct one. Bildad utters a general sentiment, that though when a man begins life he has a small family and little property, yet if he is an upright man, he will be prospered and his possessions will greatly increase; compare Job 42:12: “Yahweh blessed the latter end of Job more than the beginning.”

Verse 8For inquire thee of the former age - That is, attend to the results of observation. Ask the generations which have passed, and who in their poems and proverbs have left the records of their experience. The sentiment which Bildad proposes to confirm by this appeal is, that though the wicked should for a time flourish, yet they would be cut off, and that the righteous, though they may be for a time afflicted, yet if they seek God, they will ultimately prosper. It was common to make these appeals to the ancients. The results of observation were embodied in proverbs, parables, fables, and fragments of poems; and he was regarded as among the wisest of men who had the fruits of these observations most at command. To that Bildad appeals, and especially, as would appear, to the fragment of an ancient poem which he proceeds to repeat, and which, perhaps, is the oldest poem extant in any language.And prepare thyself - Make an effort, or give diligent attention to it.To the search of their fathers - Of the bygone generations, not only to the age immediately past, but to their ancestors. He would bring the results of the observation of far distant ages to confirm the sentiment which he had advanced.

Verse 9For we are but of yesterday - That is, we are of short life. We have had but few opportunities of observation compared with those who have gone before us.

There can be no doubt that Bildad here refers to the longevity of the antecedent ages compared with the age of man at the time when he lived; and the passage, therefore, is of importance in order to fix the date of the poem. It shows that human life had been reduced in the time of Job within comparatively moderate limits, and that an important change had taken place in its duration. This reduction began not long after the flood, and was probably continued gradually until it reached the present limit of seventy years. This passage proves that Job could not have lived in the time of the greatest longevity of man; compare the Introduction, Section 3.And know nothing - Margin, not. So the Hebrew literally, “we do not know.” The sense is, “we have had comparatively few opportunities for observation. From the comparative brevity of our lives, we see but little of the course of events. Our fathers lived through longer periods, and could mark more accurately the result of human conduct.” One suggestion may be made here, perhaps of considerable importance in explaining the course of argument in this book. The friends of Job maintained that the righteous would be rewarded in this life, and that the wicked would be overtaken by calamity. It may seem remarkable that they should have urged this so strenuously, when in the actual course of events as we now see them, there appears to be so slender a foundation for it in fact. But may this not be accounted for by the remark of Bildad in the verse under consideration? They appealed to their fathers.They relied on the results of experience in those ancient times. When people lived 900 or 1,000 years; when one generation was longer than twelve generations are now, this fact would be much more likely to occur than as human life is now ordered. Things would have time to work themselves right. The wicked in that long tract of time would be likely to be overtaken by disgrace and calamity, and the righteous would outlive the detractions and calumnies of their enemies, and meet in their old age with the ample rewards of virtue. Should people now live through the same long period, the same thing substantially would occur. A man‘s character, who is remembered at all, is fully established long before a thousand years have elapsed, and posterity does justice to the righteous and the wicked. If people lived during that time instead of being merely remembered, the same thing would be likely to occur. Justice would be done to character, and the world would, in general, render to a man the honor which he deserved. This fact may have been observed in the long lives of the people before the flood, and the result of the observation may have been embodied in proverbs, fragments of

poems, and in traditionary sayings, and have been recorded by the sages of Arabia as indubitable maxims. With these maxims they came to the controversy with Job, and forgetful of the change necessarily made by the abbreviation of human life, they proceed to apply their maxims without mercy to him; and because he was overwhelmed with calamity, they assumed that therefore he must have been a wicked man.Our days upon earth are a shadow - Comparisons of this kind are quite common in the Scriptures; see the notes at Job 7:6. A similar figure occurs in 1 Chronicles 29:15 :For we are strangers before thee,And sojourners, as were all our fathers:Our days upon earth are as a shadow,Yea, there is no abiding.An expression similar occurs in Aeschylus, Agam. v. 488, as quoted by Drusius and Dr. Good:- ειδωλον σκιας eidolon skias - - The image or semblance of a shade - So in Pindar, man is called σκιας οναρ skias onar - the dream of a shade; and so by Sophocles, καπνου σκια kapnou skia - the shadow of smoke. All these mean the same thing, that the life of man is brief and transitory. Bildad designs to apply it not to man in general, but to the age in which he lived, as being disqualified by the shortness of life to make extended observations.

Verse 10Shall not they teach thee - The results of human conduct, and the great principles on which God governs the world.And utter words out of their heart - Dr. Good renders this,“And well forth the sayings of their wisdom,”And supposes it means that the words of wisdom would proceed from them as water bubbles from a fountain. But this, I think, is a mere conceit. The true sense is, that they would not speak that merely which comes from the mouth, or that which comes upper most, and without reflection - as the Greeks say, λεγειν παν ο τι επι στομα ελθη legein pan ho ti epi stoma elthe or, as the Latins, Quicquid in buccam venerit loqui - to speak whatever comes in the mouth; but they would utter that which came from the heart - which was sincere, and the result of deep

and prolonged reflection. Perhaps, also, Bildad means to insinuate that Job had uttered what was uppermost in his mind, without taking time for reflection.

Verse 11Can the rush - This passage has all the appearance of being a fragment of a poem handed down from ancient times. It is adduced by Bildad as an example of the views of the ancients, and, as the connection would seem to imply, as a specimen of the sentiments of those who lived before the life of man had been abridged. It was customary in the early ages of the world to communicate knowledge of all kinds by maxims, moral sayings, and proverbs; by apothegms and by poetry handed down from generation to generation. Wisdom consisted much in the amount of maxims and proverbs which were thus treasured up; as it now consists much in the knowledge which we have of the lessons taught by the past, and in the ability to apply that knowledge to the various transactions of life. The records of past ages constitute a vast storehouse of wisdom, and the present generation is more wise than those which have gone before, only because the results of their observations have been treasured up, and we can act on their experience, and because we can begin where they left off, and, taught by their experience, can avoid the mistakes which they made. The word “rush” here גמא gome' denotes properly a bulrush, and especially the Egyptian papyrus - papyrus Nilotica; see the notes at Isaiah 18:2. It is derived from the verb gama' to גמא absorb, to drink up, and is given to this plant because it absorbs or drinks up moisture. The Egyptians used it to make garments, shoes, baskets, and especially boats or skiffs; Pithy, Nat. His. 13. 2126; see the notes at Isaiah 18:2. They also derived from it materials for writing - and hence, our word paper. The Septuagint renders it here, παπυρος papuros Without mire - Without moisture. It grew in the marshy places along the Nile.Can the flag - Another plant of a similar character. The word אחו 'achu flag, says Gesenius, is an Egyptian word, signifying marsh-grass, reeds, bulrushes, sedge, everything which grows in wet grounds. The word was adopted not only into the Hebrew, but also into the Greek idiom of Alexandria, where it is written, αχι achi αχει achei Jerome says of it, “When I inquired of the learned what this word meant, I heard from the Egyptians, that by this name everything was intended in their language which grew up in a pool.” The word is synonymous with rush, or bulrush, and denotes a plant which absorbs a great quantity of water. What is the exact idea which this figure is designed to convey, is not very clear. I think it

probable that the whole description is intended to represent a hypocrite, and that the meaning is, that he had in his growth a strong resemblance to such a rush or reed. There was nothing solid or substantial in his piety. It was like the soft, spongy texture of the water-reed, and would wilt under trial, as the papyrus would when deprived of water.

Verse 12Whilst it is yet in his greenness - That is, while it seems to be in its vigor.And is not cut down - Even when it is not cut down. If suffered to stand by itself, and if undisturbed, it will wither away. The application of this is obvious and beautiful. Such plants have no self sustaining power. They are dependent on moisture for their support. If that is withheld, they droop and die. So with the prosperous sinner and the hypocrite. His piety, compared with that which is genuine, is like the spongy texture of the paper-reed compared with the solid oak. He is sustained in his professed religion by outward prosperity, as the rush is nourished by moisture; and the moment his prosperity is withdrawn, his religion droops and dies like the flag without water.

Verse 13So are the paths of all that forget God - This is clearly a part of the quotation from the sayings of the ancients. The word “paths” here means ways, acts, doings. They who forget God are like the paper-reed. They seem to flourish, but they have nothing that is firm and substantial. As the paper-reed soon dies, as the flag withers away before any other herb, so it will be with the wicked, though apparently prosperous.And the hypocrite‘s hope shall perish - This important sentiment, it seems, was known in the earliest periods of the world; and if the supposition above be correct, that this is a fragment of a poem which had come down from far distant times, it was probably known before the flood. The passage requires no particular philological explanation, but it is exceedingly important. We may remark on it,(1) That there were hypocrites even in that early age of the world. They are confined to no period, or country, or religious denomination, or profession. There are hypocrites in religion - and so there are in politics, and in business, and in friendship, and in morals. There arc pretended friends, and pretended patriots, and pretended lovers of virtue, whose hearts are false and hol ow, just as there

are pretended friends of religion. Wherever there is genuine coin, it will be likely to be counterfeited; and the fact of a counterfeit is always a tribute to the intrinsic worth of the coin - for who would be at the pains to counterfeit that which is worthless? The fact that there are hypocrites in the church, is an involuntary tribute to the excellency of religion.(2) The hypocrite has a hope of eternal life. This hope is founded on various things. It may be on his own morality; it may be on the expectation that he will be able to practice a deception; it may be on some wholly false and unfounded view of the character and plans of God. Or taking the word “hypocrite” in a larger sense to denote anyone who pretends to religion and who has none, this hope may be founded on some change of feeling which he has had, and which he mistook for religion; on some supposed vision which he had of the cross or of the Redeemer, or on the mere subsiding of the alarm which an awakened sinner experiences, and the comparative peace consequent on that. The mere cessation of fear produces a kind of peace - as the ocean is calm and beautiful after a storm - no matter what may be the cause, whether it be true religion or any other cause. Many a sinner, who has lost his convictions for sin in any way, mistakes the temporary calm which succeeds for true religion, and embraces the hope of the hypocrite.(3) That hope will perish. This may occur in various ways.(a) It may die away insensibly, and leave the man to be a mere professor of religion - a formalist, without comfort, usefulness, or peace.(b) It may be taken away in some calamity by which God tries the soul, and where the man will see that he has no religion to sustain him.(c) It may occur under the preaching of the gospel, when the hypocrite may be convinced that he is destitute of vital piety, and has no true love to God.(d) It may be on a bed of death - when God comes to take away the soul, and when the judgment-seat appears in view.(e) Or it will be at the bar of God. Then the hope of the hypocrite will certainly be destroyed. Then it will be seen that he had no true religion, and then he will be consigned to the awful doom of him who in the most solemn circumstances lived to deceive, and who assumed the appearance of that which he had the strongest reason to believe he never possessed. Oh! how important it is for every professor of religion to examine himself, that he may know what is the foundation of his hope of heaven!

Verse 14Whose hope shall be cut off - Schultens supposes that the quotation from the ancients closes with Job 8:13, and that these are the comments of Bildad on the passage to which he had referred. Rosenmuller and Noyes continue the quotation to the close of Job 8:19; Dr. Good closes it at Job 8:13. It seems to me that it is extended further than Job 8:13, and probably it is to be regarded as continued to the close of Job 8:18. The beginning of this verse has been very variously rendered. Dr. Good says that it has never been understood, and proposes to translate it, “thus shall his support rot away.” Noyes renders it, “whose expectation shall come to naught;” Gesenius, “shall be cut off.” Jerome, Non ei placebit vecordia sua. “his madness (do age, rage, or frenzy) shall not please him?” The Septuagint, “his house shall be uninhabitable, and his tent shall pass away as the spider.”The Hebrew word translated “cut off” (יקט yaqot ) is from קוט kut usually meaning to loathe, to nauseate, to be offensive. Gesenius supposes that the word here is synonymous with the Arabic “to be cut off.” But this sense does not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew, and it is doubtful whether this is the true sense of the phrase. In the Hebrew word there is probably always the idea of loathing, of being offensive, irksome, or disgusting; see Psalm 95:10, I was grieved; Job 10:1, is weary; Ezekiel 6:9, shall loathe; so Ezekiel 20:43; Ezekiel 36:31; Ezekiel 16:47, a tiresome, or disgusting object. Taylor (Concord) renders it here, “Whom his hope shall loathe or abominate, that is, who shall loathe or hate the thing that he hopes for.” I have no doubt that the meaning here is, to be loathsome, offensive, or nauseous, and the correct sense is, “whose hope shall rot.” The figure is continued from the image of the paper-reed and the flag, which soon decay; and the idea is, that as such weeds grow offensive and putrid in the stagnant water, so shall it be with the hope of the hypocrite.And whose trust - Whose confidence, or expectation.A spider‘s web - Margin, “house.” So the Hebrew בית bayıth The spider‘s house is the web which it forms, a frail, light, tenuous substance which will sustain almost nothing. The wind shakes it, and it is easily brushed away. So it will be with the hope of the hypocrite.

Verse 15He shall lean upon his house - This is an allusion to the web or house of the spider. The hope of the hypocrite is called the house which he has built for

himself; his home, his refuge, his support. But it shall fail him. In times of trial he will trust to it for support, and it will be found to be as frail as the web of the spider. How little the light and slender thread which a spider spins would avail a man for support in time of danger! So frail and unsubstantial will be the hope of the hypocrite! It is impossible to conceive any figure which would more strongly describe the utter vanity of the hopes of the wicked. A similar comparison occurs in the Koran, Sur. 28,40: “They who assume any other patrons to themselves besides God, are like the spider building his house; for the house of the spider is most feeble.”He shall hold it fast - Or, he shall lay hold on it to sustain him, denoting the avidity with which the hypocrite seizes upon his hope. The figure is still taken from the spider, and is an instance of a careful observation of the habits of that insect. The idea is, that the spider, when a high wind or a tempest blows, seizes upon its slender web to sustain itself. But it is insufficient. The wind sweeps all away. So the tempest of calamity sweeps away the hypocrite, though he grasps at his hope, and would seek security in that, as a spider does in the light and tenuous thread which it has spun.

Verse 16He is green before the sun - Vulgate, “antequam veniat sol - before the sun comes.” So the Chaldee, “before the rising of the sun.” So Eichhorn renders it. According to this, which is probably the true interpretation, the passage means that he is green and flourishing before the sun rises, but that he cannot hear its heat and withers away. A new illustration is here introduced, and the object is to compare the hypocrite with a vigorous plant that grows up quick and sends its branches afar, but which has no depth of root, and which, when the intense heat of the sun comes upon it, withers away. The comparison is not with a tree, which would bear the heat of the sun, but rather with those succulent plants which have a large growth of leaves and branches, like a gourd or vine, but which will not bear a drought or endure the intense heat of the sun. “This comparison of the transitory nature of human hope and prosperity to the sudden blight which over throws the glory of the forest and of the garden,” says the Editor of the Pictorial Bible (on Psalm 37:35), “is at once so beautiful and so natural, as to have been employed by poets of every age.” One such comparison of exquisite finish occurs in Shakespeare:This is the state of man! Today he puts forth

The tender leaves of hope; tomorrow blossoms,And hears his blushing honours thick upon him:The third day comes a frost, a killing frost,And, when he thinks, good easy man, full surelyHis greatness is a ripening, nips his shoot,And then he falls, as I do.And his branch shooteth forth … - A comparison of a prosperous person or nation with a vine which spreads in this manner, is common in the Scriptures. See Psalm 80:11:She sent out her boughs unto the sea,And her branches unto the river.Compare the note at Isaiah 16:8. A similar figure occurs in Psalm 37:35:I have seen the wicked in great power,And spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Verse 17His roots are wrapped about the heap - There has been great diversity of opinion in the interpretation of this passage. Jerome renders it, “over the heap of stones his roots are condensed.” Walton, “super fontem - over a fountain.” The Septuagint, “he lies down (or sleeps, κοιμαται koimatai ) on a heap of stones; and he lives in the midst of flint-stones.” According to some, the word rendered heap ;gal means a fountain; according to others, it means a heap or pile of stones גלaccording to Dr. Good, it means a rock. According to the view of the former, it refers to the flourishing condition of a hypocrite or sinner, and means that he is like a tree that sends its roots by a fountain, and is nourished by it. According to others, the reference is to the fact that the hypocrite is like a plant that has no depth of earth for its roots, that wraps its rooks around anything, even a heap of stones, to support itself; and that consequently will soon wither under the intense heat of the sun. The word גל gal rendered “heap,” means either(1.) A heap, as a heap of stones, from גלל galal - to roll, as e. g. stones. It may denote a heap of stones, Joshua 7:26, but it commonly refers to the ruins of walls and cities, Jeremiah 9:11; Jeremiah 51:37; Isaiah 25:2. It means(2.) A fountain or spring, so called from the rolling or welling up of the waters, Psalm 42:7; Psalm 89:9; Psalm 107:25, Psalm 107:29. The parallelism, if nothing else, demands that the usual signification should be given to it here; and the true sense is, that the prosperous wicked man or the hypocrite is like a plant which

stands in the midst of rocks, rubbish, or old ruins, and not like one that stands in a fertile soil where it may strike its roots deep. The reference is to the fact that a tree or plant which springs up on a rock, or in the midst of rocks, will send its roots afar for nutriment, or will wrap them around the projecting points of rocks in order to obtain support. All have observed this in trees standing on rocks; but the following extract from Sillinian‘s Journal for January, 1840, wil illustrate the fact referred to here more fully.“About fifteen years ago, upon the top of an immense boulder of limestone, some ten or twelve feet in diameter, a sapling was found growing. The stone was but slightly imbedded in the earth; several of its sides were raised from four to six feet above its surface; but the top of the rock was rough with crevices, and its surface, which was sloping off, on one side, to the earth, was covered with a thin mould. From this mould the tree had sprung up, and having thrust its roots into the crevices of the rock, it had succeeded in reaching the height of some twelve or fifteen feet. But about this period the roots on one side became loosened from their attachment, and the tree gradually declined to the opposite side, until its body was in a parallel line with the earth. The roots on the opposite side, having obtained a firmer hold, afforded sufficient nourishment to sustain the plant; although they could not, alone, retain it in its vertical position. In this condition of things, the tree as if ‹conscious of its needs, ‹ adopted (if the term may be used) an ingenious process, in order to regain its former upright position. One of the most vigorous of the detached roots sent out a branch from its side, which, passing round a projection of the rock, again united with the parent stalk, and thus formed a perfect loop around this projection, which gave to the root an immovable attachment.“The tree now began to recover from its bent position. Obeying the natural tendency of all plants to grow erect, and sustained by this root, which increased with unwonted vigor, in a few years it had entirely regained its vertical position, elevated, as no one could doubt who saw it, by the aid of the root which had formed this singular attachment. But this was not the only power exhibited by this remarkable tree.“After its elevation it flourished vigorously for several years. Some of its roots had traced the sloping side of the rock to the earth, and were buried in the soil below. Others, having embedded themselves in its furrows, had completely filled these crevices with vegetable matter. The tree still continuing to grow, concentric layers of vegetable matter were annually deposited between the alburnum and liber,

until by the force of vegetable growth alone, the rock was split from the top to the bottom, into three nearly equal divisions, and branches of the roots were soon found, extending down, through the divisions into the earth below. On visiting the tree a few months since, to take a drawing of it, we found that it had attained an altitude of fifty feet, and was four and a half feet in circumference at its base.”The image here shows that the author of this beautiful fragment was a careful observer of nature, and the comparison is exceedingly pertinent and striking. What more beautiful illustration of a hypocrite can there be? His roots do not strike into the earth. His piety is not planted in a rich soil. It is on the hard rock of the unconverted human heart. Yet it sends out its roots afar; seems to flourish for a time; draws nutriment from remote objects; clings to a crag or a projecting rock, or to anything for support - until a tempest sweeps it down to rise no more! No doubt the idea of Bildad was, that Job was just such a man.Seeth the place of stones - Septuagint, “and lives in the midst of flints,” not an unapt rendering - and a very striking description of a hypocrite. So Castellio, “existit inter lapides.” Its only nutriment is derived from the scanty earth in the stony soil on which it stands, or in the crevices of the rocks.

Verse 18If he destroy him from his place - The particle here which is rendered “if (אם 'ım ) is often used to denote emphasis, and means here “certainly” - “he shall be certainly destroyed.” The word rendered destroy, from בלע bela‛ means literally to swallow Job 7:19, to swallow up, to absorb; and hence, to consume, lay waste, destroy. The sense is, that the wicked or the hypocrite shall be wholly destroyed from his place, but the image or figure of the tree is still retained. Some suppose that it means that God would destroy him from his place; others, as Rosenmuller and Dr. Good, suppose that the reference is to the soil in which the tree was planted, that it would completely absorb all nutriment, and leave the tree to die; that is, that the dry and thirsty soil in which the tree is planted, instead of affording nutriment, acts as a “sucker,” and absorbs itself all the juices which would otherwise give support to the tree. This seems to me to be probably the true interpretation. It is one drawn from nature, and one that preserves the concinnity of the passage.Then it shall deny him - That is, the soil, the earth, or the place where it stood. This represents a wicked man under the image of a tree. The figure is beautiful. The earth will be ashamed of it; ashamed that it sustained the tree; ashamed that

it ever ministered any nutriment, and will refuse to own it. So with the hypocrite. He shall pass away as if the earth refused to own him, or to retain any recollection of him.I have not seen thee - I never knew thee. It shall utterly deny any acquaintance with it. There is a striking resemblance here to the language which the Savior says he will use respecting the hypocrite in the day of judgment: “and then will I profess to them, I never knew you;” Matthew 7:23. The hypocrite has never been known as a pious man. The earth will refuse to own him as such, and so will the heavens.

Verse 19Behold, this is the joy of his way - This is evidently sarcastic. “Lo! such is the joy of his course! He boasts of joy, as all hypocrites do, but his joy endures only for a little time. This is the end of it. He is cut down and removed, and the earth and the heavens disown him!”And out of the earth shall others grow - This image is still derived from the tree or plant. The meaning is, that such a plant would be taken away, and that others would spring up in its place which the earth would not be ashamed of. So the hypocrite is removed to make way for others who will be sincere, and who will be useful. Hypocrites and useless people in the church are removed to make way for others who will be active and devoted to the cause of the Redeemer. A similar sentiment occurs in Job 27:16-17. This closes, as I suppose, the quotation which Bildad makes from the poets of the former age, and in the remainder of the chapter he states another truth pertaining to the righteous. This fragment is one of the most interesting that can be found any where. As a relic of the earliest times it is exceedingly valuable; as an illustration of the argument in hand; and of the course of events in this world, it is eminently beautiful. It is as true now as it was when uttered before the flood, and may be used now as describing the doom of the hypocrite, with as much propriety as then, and it may be regarded as one of the way-marks in human affairs, showing that the government of God, and the manner of his dispensations, are always substantially the same.

Verse 20Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man - On the meaning of the word perfect, see the note at Job 1:1. The sentiment of Bildad, or the inference which

he draws from the whole argument is, that God will be the friend of the pious, but that he will not aid the wicked. This accords with the general sentiment maintained in the argument of the friends of Job.Neither will he help the evil doers - Margin, “Take the ungodly by the hand.” This is in accordance with the Hebrew. The figure is that of taking one by the hand in order to assist him; see Isaiah 42:6.

Verse 21Till he fill thy mouth with laughing - Until he make thee completely happy. The word rendered “till” ,( ad‛ עד) is rendered by Dr. Good, “even yet.” Noyes, following Houbigant, DeWette, and Michaelis, proposes to change the pointing, and to read עד ‛od instead of עד ‛ad - meaning, “while.” The verse is connected with that which follows, and the particle used here evidently means “while,” or “even yet” - and the whole passage means, “if you return to God, he will even yet fill you with joy, while those who hate you shall be clothed with shame. God will show you favor, but the dwelling of the wicked shall come to naught.” The object of the passage is to induce Job to return to God, with the assurance that if he did, he would show mercy to him, while the wicked should be destroyed.With rejoicing - Margin, “Shouting for joy.” The word used (תרועה teru‛ah ) is properly that which denotes the clangor of a trumpet, or the shout of victory and triumph.

Verse 22They that hate thee shall be clothed with shame - When they see your returning prosperity, and the evidences of the divine favor. They will then be ashamed that they regarded you as a hypocrite, and that they reproached you in your trials.And the dwelling-place of the wicked … - The wicked shall be destroyed, and his family shall pass away. That is, God will favor the righteous, but punish the wicked. This opinion the friends of Job maintain all along, and by this they urge him to forsake his sins, repent, and return to God.

09 Chapter 9 Verse 2I know it is so of a truth - Job here refers, undoubtedly, to something that had been said before; but whether it is to the general strain of remark, or to some

particular expression, may be doubted. Rosenmuller supposes that he refers to what was said by Eliphaz in Job 4:17; but it seems more probable that it is to the general position which had been laid down and defended, that God was just and holy, and that his proceedings were marked with equity. Job admits this, and proceeds to show that it was a truth quite as familiar to him as it was to them. The object of his dwelling on it seems to be to show them that it was no new thing to him, and that he had some views on that important subject which were well worthy of attention.But how should man be just with God? - Margin, “before.” The meaning is, that he could not be regarded as perfectly holy in the sight of God; or that so holy and pure a being as God must see that man was a sinner, and regard him as such; see the sentiment explained in the notes at Job 4:17. The question here asked is, in itself, the most important ever propounded by man - “How shall sinful man be regarded and treated as righteous by his Maker?” This has been the great inquiry which has always been before the human mind. Man is conscious that he is a sinner. He feels that he must be regarded as such by God. Yet his happiness here and hereafter, his peace and all his hope, depend on his being treated as if he were righteous, or regarded as just before God. This inquiry has led to all forms of religion among people; to all the penances and sacrifices of different systems; to all the efforts which have been made to devise some system that shall make it proper for God to treat people as righteous.The question has never been satisfactorily answered except in the Christian revelation, where a plan is disclosed by which God “may be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth.” Through the infinite merits of the Redeemer, man, though conscious that he is personally a sinner, may be treated as if he had never sinned; though feeling that he is guilty, he may consistently be forever treated as if he were just. The question asked by Job implies that such is the evidence and the extent of human guilt, that man can never justify himself. This is clear and indisputable. Man cannot justify himself by the deeds of the law. Justification, as a work of law, is this: A man is charged, for example, with the crime of murder. He sets up in defense that he did not kill, or that if he tools life it was in self-defense, and that he had a right to do it. Unless the fact of killing be proved, and it be shown that he had no right to do in the case as he has done, he cannot be condemned, and the law acquits him. It has no charge against him, and he is just or justified in the sight of the law. But in this sense man can never be just before God. He can neither show that the things charged on him by his

Maker were not done, or that being done, he had a right to do them; and being unable to do this, he must be held to be guilty. He can never be justified therefore by the law, and it is only by that system which God has revealed in the gospel, where a conscious sinner may be treated as if he were righteous through the merits of another, that a man can ever be regarded as just before God; see Romans 1:17, note; Romans 3:24-25, note.

Verse 3If he will contend with him - That is, if God enters into a controversy with man. If he chooses to charge crime on him, and to hold him responsible for his deeds. The language here is taken from courts of justice, and means that if a trial were instituted, where God should submit charges, and the matter were left to adjudication, man could not answer the charges against him; compare the notes at Isaiah 41:1.He cannot answer him one of a thousand - For one of a thousand of the sins charged on him. The word “thousand” here is used to denote the largest number, or all. A man who could not answer for one charge brought against him out of a thousand, must be held to be guilty; and the expression here is equivalent to saying that he could not answer him at all. It may also be implied that God has many charges against man. His sins are to be reckoned by thousands. They are numerous as his years, his months, his weeks, his days, his hours, his moments; numerous as his privileges, his deeds, and his thoughts. For not one of those sins can he answer. He can give no satisfactory account before an impartial tribunal for any of them. If so, how deeply guilty is man before God! How glorious that plan of justification by which he can be freed from this long list of offences, and treated as though he had not sinned.

Verse 4He is wise in heart - Herder renders this,Even the wise and the powerful,Who hath withstood him and prospered?But the more common interpretation is to refer it to God. The meaning of Job appears to be, that God was a sagacious adversary; that he was able to manage his cause; that he could meet and refute all objections which could be urged; and that it would be in vain to engage in a litigation before him. He so well understood the whole ground of debate, and was so entirely skilled in the merits of the

controversy, and could so successfully meet all that could be alleged, that it was useless to attempt to hold an argument with him.And mighty in strength - He is able to execute all his designs, and to carry all his purposes into effect. Man is weak and feeble, and it is hopeless for him to attempt to contend with the Almighty.Who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? - To harden oneself, here means to resist or withstand him. It refers to the firmness or resolution which one is obliged to adopt who opposes another. Here it means the opposition which man makes to the law and government of the Most High; and the affirmation is, that no one can make such opposition who will not be ultimately overcome. God is so great, so powerful, and so just, that a successful resistance cannot be made. The arrangements of God will take their course, and man must yield to his claims and his government, or be prostrated. None can successfully resist God; and the true policy of man, as well as his duty, is to yield to him, and be at peace with him.And hath prospered - Or been successful. He has failed in his opposition, and been obliged to yield. Prosperity is not found in opposing God. It is only by falling in with his arrangements and following his designs. A prosperous voyage is made by falling in with winds and currents, and not in opposing them; prosperous agriculture is carried on by coinciding with the favorable seasons of the year, and taking advantage of the dews, and rains, and sunbeams that God sends, and not in opposing them; prosperity in regard to health is found in taking advantage of the means which God gives to secure it, and not in opposing them. And the sinner in his course has no more chance of success and prosperity, than a man would have who should make it a point or principle of life always to sail against tides, and currents, and head winds; or he who should set at defiance all the laws of husbandry, and plant on a rock, or in the dead of winter; or he who should feed himself on poison rather than on nutritious food, and cultivate the nightshade rather that wheat. The great principle is, that if a man desires prosperity, he must fall in with the arrangements of God in his providence and grace; and wisdom is seen in studying these arrangements, and in yielding to them.

Verse 5Which removeth the mountains - In order to show how vain it was to contend with God, Job refers to some exhibitions of his power and greatness. The “removal of the mountains” here denotes the changes which occur in

earthquakes and other violent convulsions of nature. This illustration of the power of God is often referred to in the Scriptures; compare Judges 5:5; 1 Kings 19:11 ; Psalm 65:6; Psalm 114:4; Psalm 144:5; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 4:24.And they know not - This is evidently a Hebraism, meaning suddenly, or unexpectedly. He does it, as it were, before they are aware of it. A similar expression occurs in the Koran, “God overturns them, and they do not know it;” that is, he does it without their suspecting any such thing; compare Psalm 35:8. “Let destruction come upon him at unawares,” or, as it is in the Hebrew and in the margin, “which he knoweth not of.” Tindal renders this, “He translatethe the mountaynes or ever they be aware.”Which overturneth them in his anger - As if he were enraged. There could scarcely be any more terrific exhibition of the wrath of God than the sudden and tremendous violence of an earthquake.

Verse 6Which shaketh the earth out of her place - This evidently refers to violent convulsions of nature, as if the earth were to be taken away. Objects on the earth‘s surface become displaced, and convulsion seems to seize the world. The Septuagint renders this, “who shaketh that which is under the heavens from its foundations” - εκ Θεμελιων ek themelion The change in the Hebrew would be very slight to authorize this rendering.And the pillars thereof tremble - In this place the earth is represented as sustained like a building by pillars or columns. Whether this is a mere poetic representation, or whether it describes the actual belief of the speaker in regard to the structure of the earth, it is not easy to determine. I am inclined to think it is the former, because in another place where he is speaking of the earth, he presents his views in another form, and more in acoordance with the truth (see the notes at Job 26:7): and because here the illustration is evidently taken from the obvious and perceived effects of an earthquake. It would convulse and agitate the pillars of the most substantial edifice, and so it seemed to shake the earth, as if its very supports would fall.

Verse 7Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not - Schultens supposes that all this is a description of the deluge - when the mountains were removed, when the fountains of the deep were broken up, and when the sun was obscured and

seemed not to rise. Others have supposed that it refers to the fact that the sun is darkened by clouds and tempests, and appears not to rise and shine upon the earth. Others suppose that the allusion is to an eclipse; and others, that it is to the power of God, and means that the rising of the sun depends on him, and that if he should choose to give the command, the heavenly bodies would rise and give light no more. It seems probable that the meaning is, that God has power to do this; that the rising of the sun depends on him; and that he could delay it, or prevent it, at his pleasure. His power over the sun was shown in the time of Joshua, when, at his command, it stood still; but it is not necessary to suppose that there is any reference to this fact here. The whole meaning of the language is met by the supposition that it refers to the power of God, and affirms what he could do, or if it refer to any fact that had been observed, that the allusion is to the darkening of the sun by an eclipse or a tempest. No argument can be derived, therefore, from the expression, in regard to the age of the book.And sealeth up the stars - The word “seal” in the Scriptures (חתם chatham ) is used with considerable latitude of signification. It is employed in the sense of shutting, closing, making fast - as when anything was sealed, it was shut up or made fast. The Hebrews often used a seal, where we would use a lock, and depended on the protection derived from the belief that one would not break open that which was sealed, where we are obliged to rely on the security of the lock against force. If there were honor and honesty among people everywhere, a seal would be as secure as a lock - as in a virtuous community a sealed letter is as secure as a merchant‘s iron “safe.” To “seal up the stars,” means so to shut them up in the heavens, as to prevent their shining; to hide them from the view. They are concealed, hidden, made close - as the contents of a letter, a package, or a room are by a seal, indicating that no one is to examine them, and concealing them from the view. So God hides from our view the stars by the interposition of clouds.

Verse 8Which alone spreadeth out the heavens - As an expanse, or a curtain; see the notes at Isaiah 40:22.And treadeth upon the waves of the sea - Margin, “Heights.” So it is in the Hebrew. It means the “high waves;” that is, he walks upon the waves of the ocean when lifted up by a storm. This is spoken of here as a proof of the greatness of God; and the meaning of all is, that he is seen in the storm, in the

heaving ocean, when the heavens are black with tempest, and when the earth is convulsed. It may be added here, that the Lord Jesus walked amidst the howling winds on the lake, and thus gave evidence that he was God; Matthew 14:25. “The Egyptian hieroglyphic for what was not possible to be done, was a man walking on the water.” Burder. Dr. Good, and some others, render this, “on the mountains.” But the more correct rendering is given in the common version. The Hebrew word rendered “waves” (במה bamah ) indeed properly means a height, a lofty place, a mountain; but the comparison of waves with a mountain, is common in all languages. So we speak of waves “mountain-high,” or as high as mountains. So Virgil, Aeneid i. 105,Insequitur cumulo praeruptus aquae mons.Similar to this, is the expression occurring in Homer, κυματα ισα ορεσσιν kumata isa oressin and so Apollonius, i. 521 - αλος ακρον chalos akron The Septuagint renders it, “who walketh upon the sea as upon a pavement.”

Verse 9Which maketh Arcturus - This verse, with others of the same description in the book of Job, is of special importance, as they furnish an illustration of the views which prevailed among the patriarchs on the subject of astronomy. There are frequent references to the sciences in this book (see the Introduction), and there is no source of illustration of the views which prevailed in the earliest times in regard to the state of the sciences, so copious as can be found in this poem. The thoughts of people were early turned to the science of astronomy. Not only were they led to this by the beauty of the heavens, and by the instinctive promptings of the human mind to know something about them, but the attention of the Chaldeans and of the other Oriental nations was early drawn to them by the fact that they were shepherds, and that they passed much of their time in the open air at night, watching their flocks.Having nothing else to do, and being much awake, they would naturally contrive to relieve the tediousness of the night by watching the movements of the stars; and they early gave employment to their talents, by endeavoring to ascertain the influence which the stars exerted over the fates of people, and to their imagination, by dividing the heavens into portions, having a fancied resemblance to certain animals, and by giving them appropriate names. Hence, arose the arrangement of the stars into constellations, and the names which they still bear. The Hebrew word rendered Arcturus, is ,ayısh The Septuagint renders it‛ עש

Πλειαδα Pleiada - the Pleiades. Jerome, Arcturum. The Hebrew word usually means a moth, Job 4:19; Job 13:28; Job 27:18. It also denotes the splendid constellation in the northern hemisphere, which we call Ursa Major, the Great Bear, Arcturus, or the Wain; compare Niebuhr, Des. of Arabia, p. 114.The word ayısh does not literally mean a bear, but is made by aphaeresis‛ עש from the Arabic nas, by the excision of the initial n - as is common in Arabic; see Bochart, Hieroz. P. II. Lib. I. c. xvi. p. 113,114. The word in Arabic means a bier, and is the name given to the constellation which we denominate Ursa Major, “because,” says Bochart, “the four stars, which are a square, are regarded as a bier, on which a dead body is borne. The three following (the tail of the bear) are the daughters or sons which attend the funeral as mourners.” This name is often given to this constellation in Arabic. The Arabic name is Elna‘sch, the bier. “The expression,” says Ideler, “denotes particularly the bier on which the dead are borne, and taken in this sense, each of the two biers in the Ursa Major and Ursa Minor is accompanied by three mourning-women. The biers and the mourning-women together, are called Benatna'sch literally, daughters of the bier; that is, those who pertain to the bier.”Untersuchungen uber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Sternnamen, S. 419; compare Job 38:32: “Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?” Schultens regards the word ,ayısh as synonymous with the Arabic asson, night-vigil‛ עש from assa to go about by night, and supposes this constellation to be so called, because it always revolves around the pole, and never sets. The situation and figure of this constellation are well known. It is seen at all times in the northern part of the heavens, perpetually revolving around the North Star, and two of its principal stars point to the North Star always. Its resemblance to a bear, is quite fanciful - as it might be imagined as well to resemble any other object. The design of this fancy was merely to assist the memory. The only thing which seems to have suggested it was its slight resemblance to an animal followed by its young. Thus, the stars, now known as the “tail,” might have been supposed to resemble the cubs of a bear following their dam.The comparison of the constellation to a bier, and the movement to a funeral procession, with the sons or daughters of the deceased following on in the mourning train, is much more poetical and beautiful. This constellation is so conspicuous, that it has been an object of interest in all ages, and has been one of the groups of stars most attentively observed by navigators, as a guide in sailing. The reason was, probably, that as it constantly revolved around the North

Pole, it could always be seen in clear weather, and thus the direction in which they were sailing, could always be told. It has had a great variety of names. The name Ursa Major, or the Great Bear, is that which is commonly given to it. It is a remarkable fact, also, that while this name was given to it in the East a tribe of the American Indians - the Iroquois, also gave the same name of the Great Bear to it. This is remarkable, because, so far as known, they had no communication with each other, and because the name is perfectly arbitrary.Is this an evidence that the natives of our country, North America, derived their origin from some of the nations of the East? In some parts of England the constellation is called “Charles‘ Wain,” or Wagon, from its fancied resemblance to a waggon, drawn by three horses in a line. Others call it the Plow. The whole number of visible stars in this constellation is eighty seven, of which one is of the first, three of the second, seven of the third, and about twice as many of the fourth magnitude. The constellations of Ursa Major and Ursa Minor were represented by the ancients, under the image of a waggon drawn by a team of horses. This is alluded to by the Greek poet, Aratus, in an address to the Athenians:The one called Helix, soon as day retires.Observed with ease lights up his radiant fires;The other smaller and with feebler beams,In a less circle drives his lazy teams:But more adapted for the sailor‘s guide,Whene‘er by night he tempts the briny tide.Among the Egyptians these two constellations are represented by the figures of bears, instead of waggons. Whence the Hebrew name is derived is not quite certain; but if it be from the Arabic, it probably means the same - a bier. There seems no reason to doubt, however, that the Ursa Major is intended; and that the idea here is, that the greatness of God is shown by his having made this beautiful constellation.Orion - The Vulgate renders this Orion, the Septuagint, “ Εσπερον Hesperon Hesperus - that is, the evening star, Venus. The word kesıyl is from כסיל כסל kasal to be fat or fleshy; to be strong, lusty, firm; and then to be dull, sluggish, stupid - as fat persons usually are. Hence, the word ,kesıyl means a fool כסיל Psalm 49:11; Proverbs 1:32; Proverbs 10:1, It is used here, however, to denote a constellation, and by most interpreters it is supposed to denote the constellation Orion, which the Orientals call a giant. “They appear to have conceived of this

constellation under the figure of an impious giant bound upon the sky.” Gesenius. Hence the expression, Job 38:31; “Canst thou loose the bands of Orion?” According to the Eastern tradition, this giant was Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, afterward translated to the skies; see the notes at Isaiah 13:10, where it is rendered constellation. Virgil speaks of it as the Stormy Orion:Cam subito aseurgons fluctu nimbosus Orion.Aeneid i. 535.And again:Dum pelago desaevit heims, et aquosus Orion.Aeneid iv. 52.In another description of Orion by Virgil, it is represented as armed with gold, or surrounded by a yellow light:Arcturum, pluviasque Hyadas, geminosque Triones,Armatumque auro circumspicit Oriona.Aeneid iii. 516,517.According to the fancy of the ancients, Orion was a mighty hunter, the attendant of Diana, who having offered violence to her was stung to death by a scorpion which she had provided for that purpose. After his death he was translated to heaven, and made a constellation. Others say that he was the son of Neptune and Queen Euryale, a famous Amazonian huntress; and possessing the disposition of his mother, he became the greatest hunter in the world, and made a boast that there was no animal on earth that he could not subdue. To punish this vanity, it is said that a scorpion sprang out of the earth, and bit his foot, so that he died, but that at the request of Diana he was placed among the stars, and directly opposite to the scorpion that caused his death. On the names given to this constellation in Arabic, and the origin of the name Orion among the Greeks, see Ideler, Unter. uber den Urs. u. die Bedeut. der Stern. s. 212-227,331-336. The name El -dscebbar the giant, or hero, is that which is commonly given to it in Arabic. The constellation Orion is usually mentioned by the ancients as connected with storms, and hence, is called nimbosus Orion by Virgil, and tristis Orion by Horace. The reason of this was, that its rising usually occurred at those seasons of the year when storms prevailed, and hence, it was supposed to be their cause - as we connect the rising of the dog-star with the idea of intense heat.The situation of Orion is on the equator, midway between the poles of the heavens. It comes to the meridian about the 23d of January. The whole number

of visible stars in it is seventy-eight, of which two are of the first magnitude, four of the second, three of the third, and fifteen of the fourth. It is regarded as the most beautiful of the constellations, and when it is on the meridian there is then above the horizon the most magnificent view of the celestial bodies that the firmament exhibits. On the celestial maps it is represented by the figure of a man in the attitude of assaulting the Bull, with a sword in his belt, a huge club in his right hand, and a lion-skin in the left to serve him for a shield. The principal stars are four, in the form of a long square or parallelogram, intersected by the “Three Stars” in the middle called “The Ell and the Yard.” The two upper ones are represented one on each shoulder, and of the two lower ones one is in the left foot, and the other on the right knee. The position of the constellation may be seen by anyone by remarking that the “Three Stars” in the belt are those which point to the Pleiades or seven stars on the one side, and to the dog star on the other. This constellation is mentioned by Homer, as it is indeed by most of the Classical writers:Πληιαδας θ , Υαδος τε, το τε σθενος Ωριωνος. Pleiadas th' Huadas te to te sthenos Orionos - Iliad, σ sIt may furnish an illustration of the vastness of the starry heavens to remark, that in the sword of the constellation Orion there is a nebula which is almost visible to the naked eye, which is computed to be 2,200,000,000,000,000,000, or two trillion, two hundred thousand billion times larger than the sun! Dr. Dick, Chr. Keepsake for 1840, p. 184. If, then, Job, with his limited views of astronomy, saw in this constellation an impressive proof of the greatness of the Almighty, how much more sublime should be our views of God! We see this constellation not merely as a beautiful object in the sky - a collection of bright and beautiful gems - but we see it as so vast as to surpass our comprehension, and behold in it a single nebula, or speck - not quite visible to the naked eye - that mocks all our powers of conception! It may be added, that by the aid of a telescope about two thousand stars have been seen in this constellation.And Pleiades - The seven stars. The Hebrew word is kıymah a heap or כימה cluster. The name is given to the cluster of stars in the neck of the constellation Taurus, of which seven are the principal. Six or seven may be usually seen if the eye is directed toward it; but if the eye be turned carelessly aside while the attention is fixed on the group, many more may be seen. For, “it is a very remarkable fact,” says Sir John Herschell, “that the center of the visual organ is by far less sensible to feeble impressions of light than the exterior portion of the

retina.” Ast. p. 398. Telescopes show fifty or sixty large stars there crowded together into a small space. Rheita affirms that he counted two hundred stars in this small cluster. In regard to the Pleiades, Ideler makes the following remarks. “These stars were by the ancients sometimes denoted by the singular, Πλειας Pleias and sometimes by the plural, Πλειαδες Pleiades (in metrical composition, Πληιαδες Pleiades ), Pleiades. They are mentioned by Homer, Iliad, σ s Odyssey ε e and by Hesiod, Εργ Erg 383,615. Hesiod mentions the cluster as the daughter of Atlas - Ατλαγενεις Atlageneis The name Atlantides, which so often occurs among the Romans, signifies the same thing. Their mythological names are Alcyone, Merope, Celaeno, Electra, Sterope or Asterope, Taygete, and Maia. There is some uncertainty among the ancient writers from where the name Pleiades is derived. Among most etymologists, the name has respect to navigation, and the derivation is from απο του πλειν apo tou plein - because the time of navigation commenced with the rising of the Pleiades in the first part of May, and ended with their setting in the first part of November. But perhaps the name is derived simply from πλεος pleos πλειος pleios full, so that it merely denotes a condensed assemblage of stars, which Manilius, iv. 523, expresses by glomerabile sidus. Aratus, v. 257, says that the Pleiades were called επταποροι heptaporoi - those which walked in seven paths, although but six stars can be seen. In a similar sense Ovid, speaking of the Pleiades, says,Quae septem dici, sex tamen esse solent.Fast. iv. 170.Hipparchus, on the contrary, affirms that in a clear night, when there is no moon, seven stars can be seen. The difference of these views is easily explained. The group consists of one star of the third magnitude, three of the fifth, two of the sixth, and many smaller stars. It requires a very keen vision to be able to distinguish in the group more than six stars. Since therefore, among the ancients, it was commonly believed that there were no more than six, and yet among them. as with us, the name the seven stars was given to them, the opinion arose that one star of the seven had been lost. Some supposed that it had been smitten by lightning, others thai it had united itself to the middle star in the tail of the Ursa Major, and others gave to the belief a mythic signification, as is mentioned by Ovid in the place above referred to. The Romans called the Pleiades Vergiliae, because they arose in the spring. The Arabians called those stars El -thoreja - meaning abundant, copious, and answering to the Greek Πλειας Pleias Pleias. The Asiatic poets Sadi, Hafiz, and others, always mention these stars as a

beautiful rosette, with one brilliant. Sadi, in the description of a beautiful garden, says “The ground was strewed with pieces of enamel, and bands of Pleiades appeared to hang on the branches of the trees.” Hafiz says, “The heavens bear up thy poems - the pearly rosette of the Pleiades as the seal of immortality. Beigel, who has translated these poets, adds, “In this genuine Oriental spirit must we understand the words of Job, ‹Canst thou bind the brilliant rosettes of the Pleiades? that is, Who can say that he has placed this collection of brilliants as a rosette in the sky?” Ideler, Untersuchungen u. den Urs. u. die Bedeut. der Sternnamen, s. 143147.And the chambers of the south - What is the exact idea to be attached to this expression, it is not easy to say. Probably it means the remote regions of the south, or the part of the heavens which is not visible to the inhabitants of the northern hemisphere. The word rendered chambers means in the Scriptures a private apartment of a dwelling; a part that is separated from the rest by a curtain; a harem, etc. Hence, it may mean the abodes of the stars in the south - comparing the heavens with an immense tent, and regarding it as divided into separate apartments. It may mean here the stars which are hidden, as it were, in the recesses of the southern hemisphere, like the private apartments of a house, which all were not allowed to enter. There are some intimations in the book of Job that the true structure of the earth was not unknown at that remote period of the world (compare the notes at Job 26:7); and if so, then this may refer to the constellations in the south which are invisible to an inhabitant of the northern hemisphere. There is no impropriety, at any rate, in supposing that those who had traveled into the south had brought reports of stars and constellations seen there which are invisible to an inhabitant of northern Arabia.

Verse 10Which doeth great things - This is almost the sentiment which had been expressed by Eliphaz; see the notes, Job 5:9. It was evidently a proverb, and as such was used by both Eliphaz and Job.

Verse 11Lo, he goeth by me - That is, he passes along - as in the silent movements of the heavenly bodies. “I see the evidence of his existence. I can see that God must be there - moving along by me in the orbs of night and in the march of the constellations, but I cannot see God himself. He passes by, or rather he passes

over me (עלי ‛alay ), as in the majestic movement of the heavenly bodies over my head.” This is, I think, the idea, and the image is exceedingly poetic and beautiful. The heavens are seen to move in silent grandeur. The northern constellation rolls around the pole. The others move on as a marshalled army. They go in silent and solemn order, and God must be there. But, says Job, I cannot see him. I can feel that he must be there, and I look out on the heavens to see him, but my eyes fail, and I cannot behold him. He passes on, and I see him not. Who has ever looked upon the heavens in the still night, and seen the silent grandeur of such movements of the heavenly host, without some such feeling - some emotion of inexpressible awe - as if he, if I may so express it, COULD ALMOST SEE GOD?

Verse 12Behold, he taketh away - Property, friends, or life.Who can hinder him? - Margin, turn him away. Or, rather, “who shall cause him to restore?” that is, who can bring back what he takes away? He is so mighty, that what he removes, it is impossible for us to recover.Who will say unto him, What doest thou? - A similar expression occurs in Daniel 4:35. The meaning is plain. God has a right to remove any thing which we possess. Our friends, property, health, and lives, are his gift, and he has a right to them all. When he takes them away, he is but taking that which is his own, and which has been lent to us for a little time, and which he has a right to remove when it seems good to him. This truth Job fully admits, and in the calm contemplation of all his losses and his sorrows, he acknowledges that God had a right to do as he had done; see note, Job 1:21.

Verse 13If God will not withdraw his anger - That is, if he perseveres in inflicting punishment. He will not turn aside his displeasure by any opposition or resistance made to him.The proud helpers - Margin, Helpers of pride, or, strength. Jerome renders this, “under whom they who bear up the world bow down.” The Septuagint, not less singularly, “by him the whales (or monsters - κητος ketos ) which are under heaven, are bowed down.” Codurcus renders it, “aids of pride,” and understands by it all the things on which proud men rely, as wealth, health, rank, talent. So Dr. Good renders it, “the supports of the proud.” The meaning is, probably, that all

those things which contribute to the support of pride, or all those persons who are allied together to maintain the dominion of pride on the earth, must sink under the wrath of God. Or it may refer to those who sustain the pride of state and empire - the men who stand around the thrones of monarchs, and who contribute, by their talent and power, to uphold the pomp and magnificence of courts. On the meaning of the word here rendered pride (רהב rahab ), see the notes at Isaiah 30:7.

Verse 14How much less shall I answer him? - I, who am so feeble, how can I contend with him? If the most mighty objects in the universe are under his control; if the constellations are directed by him; if the earth is shaken, and mountains moved from their places, by his power, and if the men of most exalted rank are prostrated by him, how can I presume to contend with God? This is the common view which is given of the passage, and is evidently that which our translators entertained. But I have given in the translation what appears to me to be a more literal version, and to express a better sense - though, I confess, the translation differs from all that I have seen. According to this, the sense is simply, that such was the veneration which Job had for the character of God, that should he attempt to answer him, he would select his words with the utmost care and attention.

Verse 15Whom, though I were righteous - That is, if I felt the utmost confidence that I was righteous, yet, if God judged otherwise, and regarded me as a sinner, I would not reply to him, but would make supplication to him as a sinner. I would have so much confidence in him, and would feel that he was so much better qualified than I am to judge, and that I am so liable to be deceived, that I would come to him as a sinner, if he judged and declared me to be one, and would plead for pardon. The meaning is, that God is a much better judge of our character than we can possibly be, and that his regarding us as sinners is the highest proof that we are such, whatever may be our views to the contrary. This shows the extent of the confidence which Job had in God and is an indication of true piety. And it is founded in reason as well as in piety. Men often suppose that they are righteous, and yet they know that God adjudges otherwise, and regards them as sinners. He offers them pardon as sinners. He threatens to punish them

as sinners. The question is, whether they shall act on their own feelings and judgment in the case, or on his? Shall they adhere obstinately to their views, and refuse to yield to God, or shall they act on the truth of his declarations? Now that Job was right in his views of the case, may appear from the following considerations.(1) God knows the heart. He cannot be deceived; we may be. In nothing are we more liable to be deceived than in regard to our own character. We should, therefore, distrust our own judgment in this case, but we should never distrust God.(2) God is infinitely benevolent, and will not judge unkindly. He has no wish to find us sinners; he will have no pleasure in making us out to be transgressors. A heart of infinite benevolence would prefer to find all people holy, and would look on every favorable circumstance in the case with all the kindness which it would deserve. No being would be so likely to make a favorable decision in our case as the infinitely benevolent God; none would so delight to find that we were free from the charge of guilt.(3) God will act on his own views of our character, and not on ours; and it is prudent and wise, therefore, for us to act on his views now. He will judge us in the last day according to his estimate of our character, and not according to the estimate which we may form.(4) At the same time, we cannot but accord with his views of our own character. Our reason and conscience tell us that we have violated his laws, and that we have no claim to his mercy. No man can persuade himself that he is wholly righteous; and being conscious of guilt, though in the slightest degree, he should make supplication to his Judge.

Verse 16If I had called, and he had answered me - It is remarked by Schultens, that the expressions in these verses are all taken from courts of justice. If so, the meaning is, that even if Job should call the Almighty to a judicial action, and he should respond to him, and consent to submit the great question about his innocence, and about the justice of the divine dealings with him, to trial, yet that such was the distance between God and him, that he could not hope successfully to contend with him in the argument. He would, therefore, prostrate himself in a suppliant manner, and implore his mercy and compassion -

submitting to him as having all power, and as being a just and righteous Sovereign.Would I not believe - I cannot believe that he would enter into my complaint. He deals with me in a manner so severe; he acts toward me so much as a sovereign, that I have no reason to suppose that he would not continue to act toward me in the same way still.

Verse 17For he breaketh me - He is overwhelming me with a tempest; that is, with the storms of wrath. He shows me no mercy. The idea seems to be, that God acted toward him not as a judge determining matters by rule of law, but as a sovereign - determining them by his own will. If it were a matter of law; if he could come before him as a judge, and maintain his cause there; if the case could be fairly adjudicated whether he deserved the calamities that came upon him, he would be willing to enter into such a trial. But where the matter was determined solely by will, and God acted as a sovereign, doing as he pleased, and giving no account of his matters to anyone, then it would be useless to argue the cause. He would not know what to expect, or understand the principles on which an adjudication would be made. It is true that God acts as a sovereign, but he does not act without reference to law. He dispenses his favors and his judgments as he pleases, but he violates none of the rules of right. The error of Job was the common error which people commit, that if God acts as a sovereign, he must of course act regardless of law, and that it is vain to plead with him or try to please him. But sovereignty is not necessarily inconsistent with respect for law; and He who presides with the most absolute power over the universe, is He who is most directed by the rule of right. In Him sovereignty and law coincide; and to come to Him as a sovereign, is to come with the assurance that supreme rectitude will be done.And multiplieth my wounds without cause - That is, without sufficient reason. This is in accordance with the views which Job had repeatedly expressed. The main ground of his complaint was, that his sufferings were disproportionate to his faults.

Verse 18He will not suffer me to take my breath; - see the notes at Job 7:19.

Verse 19If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong - There has been a considerable variety in the interpretation of this passage. The meaning seems to be this. It refers to a judicial contest, and Job is speaking of the effect if he and God were to come to a trial, and the cause were to be settled before judges. He is urging reasons why he would have no hope of success in such a case. He says, therefore, “If the matter pertained only to strength, or if it were to be determined by strength, lo, he is more mighty than I am, and I could have no hope of success in such a controversy: and if the controversy was one of judgment, that is, of justice or right, I have no one to manage my cause - no one that could cope with him in the pleadings - no one who could equal him in setting forth my arguments, or presenting my side of the case. It would, therefore, be wholly an unequal contest, where I could have no hope of success; and I am unwilling to engage in such a controversy or trial with God. My interest, my duty, and the necessity of the case, require me to submit the case without argument, and I will not attempt to plead with my Maker.” That there was a lack of right feeling in this, must be apparent to all.There was evidently the secret belief that God had dealt with him severely; that he had gone beyond his deserts in indicting pain on him, and that he was under a necessity of submitting not so much to justice and right as to mere power and sovereignty. But who has not had something of this feeling when deeply afflicted? And yet who, when he has had it, has not felt that it was far from being what it should be? Our feeling should be, “we deserve all that we suffer, and more than we have yet endured. God is a sovereign; but He is right. Though he afflicts us much, and others little, yet it is not because he is unjust, but because he sees that there is some good reason why we should suffer. That reason may be seen yet by us, but if not, we should never doubt that it exists.”Who shall set me a time to plead? - Noyes renders this, “Who shall summon me to trial?” Dr. Good, “Who should become a witness for me?” The sense is, “Who would summon witnesses for me? If it was a mere trial of strength, God is too mighty for me; if it were a question of justice, who would compel witnesses to come on my side? Who could make them willing to appear against God, and to bear testimony for me in a controversy with the Almighty?”

Verse 20

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me - That is, referring still to the form of a judicial trial, if I should undertake to manage my own cause, I should lay myself open to condemnation even in my argument on the subject, and should show that I was far from the perfection which I had undertaken to maintain. By passionate expressions; by the language of complaint and murmuring; by a want of suitable reverence; by showing my ignorance of the principles of the divine government; by arguments unsound and based on false positions; or by contradictions and self-refutations, I should show that my position was untenable, and that God was right in charging me with guilt. In some or in all of these ways Job felt, probably, that in an argument before God he would be self-condemned, and that even an attempt to justify himself, or to prove that he was innocent, would prove that he was guilty. And is it not always so? Did a man ever yet undertake to repel the charges of guilt brought against him by his Maker, and to prove that he was innocent, in which he did not himself show the truth of what he was denying? Did not his false views of God and of his law; his passion, complaining, and irreverence; his unwillingness to admit the force of the palpable considerations urged to prove that he was guilty, demonstrate that he was at heart a sinner, and that he was insubmissive and rebellious? The very attempt to enter into such an argument against God, shows that the heart is not right; and the manner in which such an argument is commonly conducted demonstrates that he who does it is sinful.If I say, I am perfect - Should I attempt to maintain such an argument, the very attempt would prove that my heart is perverse and evil. It would do this because God had adjudged the contrary, and because such an effort would show an insubmissive and a proud heart. This passage shows that Job did not regard himself as a man absolutely free from sin. He was indeed said Job 1:1 to be “perfect and upright;” but this verse proves that that testimony in regard to him was not inconsistent with his consciousness of guilt. See the notes at that verse. And is not the claim to absolute perfection in this world always a proof that the heart is perverse? Does not the very setting up of such a claim in fact indicate a pride of heart, a self-satisfaction, and an ignorance of the true state of the soul, which is full demonstration that the heart is far from being perfect? God adjudges man to be exceedingly sinful; and if I do not mistake the meaning of the Scriptures, this is his testimony of every human heart - totally until renewed - partially ever onward until death. If this be the account in the Scriptures, then the claim to absolute perfection is prima facie, if not full proof, that the heart is in

some way perverse. It has come to a different conclusion from that of God. It sets up an argument against him - and there can be no more certain proof of a lack of perfection than such an attempt. There is in this verse an energy in the original which is very feebly conveyed by our translation. It is the language of strong and decided indignation at the very idea of asserting that he was perfect. אני תם tam 'anıy - “perfect I!” or, “I perfect! The thought is absurd! It can only prove that I am perverse to attempt to set up any such claim!” Stuhlman renders this,“However good I may be, I must condemn myself;However free from guilt, I must call myself evil:”And explains it as meaning, “God can through the punishments which he inflicts constrain me to confess, against the clear consciousness of my innocence, that I am guilty.”

Verse 21Though I were perfect - The same mode of expression occurs here again. “I perfect! I would not know it, or recognize it. If this were my view, and God judged otherwise, I would seem to be ignorant of it. I would not mention it.”Yet would I not know my soul - Or, “I could not know my soul. If I should advance such a claim, it must be from my ignorance of myself.” Is not this true of all the claims to perfection which have ever been set up by man? Do they not demonstrate that he is ignorant of his own nature and character? So clear does this seem to me, that I have no doubt that Job expressed more than three thousand years ago what will be found true to the end of time - that if a man advances the claim to absolute perfection, it is conclusive proof that he does not know his own heart. A superficial view of ourselves, mingled with pride and vanity, may lead us to think that we are wholly free from sin. But who can tell what he would be if placed in other circumstances? Who knows what latent depravity would be developed if he were thrown into temptations?I would despise my life - Dr. Good, I think, has well expressed the sense of this. According to his interpretation, it means that the claim of perfection would be in fact disowning all the consciousness which he had of sinfulness; all the arguments and convictions pressed on him by his reason and conscience, that he was a guilty man. Schultens, however, has given an interpretation which slightly differs from this, and one which Rosenmuller prefers. “Although I should be wholly conscious of innocence, yet that clear consciousness could not sustain me against the infinite splendor of the divine glory and majesty; but I should be

compelled to appear ignorant of my own soul, and to reprobate, condemn, and despise my life passed with integrity and virtue.” This interpretation is in accordance with the connection, and may be sustained by the Hebrew.

Verse 22This is one thing, therefore I said it - This may mean, “it is all the same thing. It makes no difference whether a man be righteous or wicked. God treats them substantially alike; he has one and the same rule on the subject. Nothing can be argued certainly about the character of a man from the divine dealings with him here.” This was the point in dispute, this the position that Job maintained - that God did not deal with people here in strict accordance with their character, but that the righteous and the wicked in this world were afflicted alike.He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked - He makes no distinction among them. That Job was right in this his main position there can be no doubt; and the wonder is, that his friends did not all see it. But it required a long time in the course of events, and much observation and discussion, before this important point was made clear. With our full views of the state of retribution in the future world, we can have no doubt on the subject. Heavy and sudden judgments do not necessarily prove that they who are cut off are especially guilty, and long prosperity is no evidence that a man is holy. Calamity, by fire and flood, on a steamboat, or in the pestilence, does not demonstrate the unusual and eminent wickedness of those who suffer (compare Luke 13:1-5), nor should those who escape from such calamities infer that of necessity they are the objects of the divine favor.

Verse 23If the scourge slay suddenly - If calamity comes in a sudden and unexpected manner. Dr. Good, following Reiske, translates this,” if he suddenly slay the oppressor,” understanding the word scourge שוט shot as meaning an oppressor, or one whom God employs as a scourge of nations. But this is contrary to all the ancient versions. The word שוט shot means properly a whip, a scourge (compare the notes at Job 5:21), and then calamity or affliction sent by God upon men. Such is clearly the case here.He will laugh at the trial of the innocent - That is, he seems to disregard or to be pleased with their trials. He does not interpose to rescue them. He seems to look calmly on, and suffers them to be overwhelmed with others. This is a poetic

expression, and cannot mean that God derides the trials of the innocent, or mocks their sufferings. It means that he seems to be inattentive to them; he suffers the righteous and the wicked to be swept away together as if he were regardless of character.

Verse 24The earth is given into the hand of the wicked - This is evidently designed as an illustration of the sentiment that Job was maintaining - that there was not a distribution of rewards and punishments in this life according to character. In illustration of this, he says that the wicked are raised to places of trust and power. They exercise a wide dominion over the earth, and the world is under their control. Of the truth of this there can be no doubt. Rulers have been, in general, eminent for wickedness, and the affairs of nations have thus far been almost always under the control of those who are strangers to God. At the present time there is scarcely a pious man on any throne in the world, and the rulers of even Christian nations are in general eminent for anything rather than for personal religion.He covereth the faces of the judges thereof - There has been considerable variety in the exposition of this expression. Some suppose that it refers to the wicked, meaning that they cover the faces of the judges under them so that they connive at and tolerate crime. Others, that it means that God blinds the eyes of wicked rulers, so that they connive at crime, and are partial and unjust in their decisions. Others, that it means that God covers the faces of the judges of the earth with shame and confusion, that though he admits them to prosperity and honor for a time, yet that he overwhelms them at length with calamities and sorrows. Dr. Good supposes it to mean that the earth is given over into the hands of injustice, and that this hoodwinks the faces of the judges. The phrase properly means, to hoodwink, to blind, to conceal the face. It seems to me that the true sense is not expressed by either of the views above. The parallelism requires us to understand it as meaning that while the wicked had dominion over the earth, the righteous were in obscurity, or were not advanced to honor and power. The word “judges,” therefore, I think, is to be understood of the righteous judges, of those who are qualified to administer justice. Their face is covered. They are kept in concealment. The wicked have the sway, and they are doomed to shame, obscurity, and dishonor. This interpretation accords with the tenor of the

argument, and may be sustained by the Hebrew, though I have not found it in any of the commentaries which I have consulted.If not, where, and who is he - If this is not a just view, who is God? What are his dealings? Where is he to be seen, and how is he to be known? Or, it may mean, “if it is not God who does these strange things, who is it that does them?” Rosenmuller. But I prefer the former interpretation. “Tell me who and what God is, if this is not a fair and just account of him. These things in fact are done, and if the agency of God is not employed in them, who is God? And where is his agency seen?

Verse 25Now my days are swifter than a post - Than a courier, runner, or racer, רוץ ruts Vulgate, cursore; Septuagint, δρομεως dromeos a racer. The word is not unfrequently applied to the runners or couriers, that carried royal commands in ancient times. It is applied to the mounted couriers of the Persians who carried the royal edicts to the distant provinces, Esther 3:13, Esther 3:15; Esther 8:14, and to the body-guard and royal messengers of Saul and of David, 1 Samuel 22:17; 2 Kings 10:25 . The common rate of traveling in the East is exceedingly slow. The caravans move little more than two miles an hour. Couriers are however, employed who go either on dromedaries, on horses, or on foot, and who travel with great rapidity. Lady Montague says that “after the defeat; at Peterwaradin, they (the couriers on dromedaries) far outran the fleetest horses, and brought the first news of the battle at Belgrade.” The messengers in Barbary who carry despatches, it is said, will run one hundred and fifty miles in twenty-four hours (Harmer‘s Observa. ii. 200, ed. 1808), and it has been said that the messengers among the American savages would run an hundred and twenty miles in the twenty-four hours. In Egypt, it is a common thing for an Arab on foot to accompany a rider, and to keep up with the horse when at full gallop, and to do this for a long time without apparent fatigue. The meaning of Job here is, that his life was short, and that his days were passing swiftly away, not like the slow caravan, but like the most fleet messenger compare the note at Job 7:6.They see no good - I am not permitted to enjoy happiness. My life is a life of misery.

Verse 26

They are passed away as the swift ships - Margin, Ships of desire; or ships of Ebeh. Hebrew אניה אבה 'onıyah 'ebeh Vulgate, Naves poma portantes. Septuagint, “Is there any track left by ships in their passage?” The Chaldee renders it as the Vulgate, “Ships bearing good fruit;” that is, as such fruit was perishable, haste was required in order to reach the place of destination. Our translators were evidently perplexed by the word אבה 'ebeh as appears by their placing two different phrases in the margin. “Ships of desire,” denotes the value or desirableness of such ships; and the phrase, “Ships of Ebeh,” denotes their confession of ignorance as to the meaning of the word. Gesenius explains the word to mean reed, bulrush, or papyrus - from an Arabic use of the word, and supposes that the reference is to the light vessels made of the papyrus, which were used on the Nile; see the note at Isaiah 18:2. Such vessels would be distinguished for the ease with which they might be rowed, and the rapidity of their motion. Chardin supposes that the reference is to vessels that were made to go on the Euphrates or the Tigris, and that were borne along with the rapid current. The supposition of an allusion to any boat or vessel under full sail, will be in accordance with the language here, though the probability is, that the reference is to the light vessels, made of reeds, that might be propelled with so much fleetness. Sails were frequently used, also, for such vessels.As the eagle that hasteth to the prey - A striking emblem of rapidity. Few things can be more rapid than the motion of the eagle, as he darts upon his victim.sa40

Verse 27If I say, I will forget my complaint - If I resolve that I will leave off complaining, and will be more cheerful, I find it all in vain. My fears and sorrows return, and all my efforts to be cheerful are ineffectualI will leave off my heaviness - The word rendered “my heaviness” here (פני panam ) denotes literally “my face;” and the reference is to the sad and sorrowful countenance which he had. “If I should lay that aside, and endeavor to be cheerful.”And comfort myself - The word rendered comfort here (בלג balag ) in Arabic means to be bright, to shine forth; and it would here be better rendered by “brighten up.” We have the same expression still when we say to one who is sad and melancholy, “brighten up; be cheerful.” The meaning is, that Job endeavored

to appear pleasant and cheerful, but it was in vain. His sorrows pressed heavily on him, and weighed down his spirits in spite of himself, and made him sad.

Verse 28I am afraid of all my sorrows - My fears return. I dread the continuance of my griefs, and cannot close my eye to them.Thou wilt not hold me innocent - God will not remove my sorrows so as to furnish the evidence that I am innocent. My sufferings continue, and with them continue all the evidence on which my friends rely that I am a guilty man. In such a state of things, how can I be otherwise than sad? He was held to be guilty; he was suffering in such a way as to afford them the proof that he was so, and how could he be cheerful?

Verse 29If I be wicked, why then labour I in vain? - The word “if,” here introduced by our translators, greatly obscures the sense. The meaning evidently is, “I am held to be guilty, and cannot answer to that charge. God regards me as such, and if I should attempt to meet him on the charge, it would be a vain attempt; and I must admit its truth. It would be labor in vain to deny it against one so mighty as he is.” This interpretation accords with the argument in the whole chapter. Job maintains that it would be in vain to contend with God, and he gives up the argument in despair. It is quite evident, however, that he does not do it so much because he is convinced himself, as because he knows that God is great, and that it would be useless to contend with him. There is evidently implied all along the feeling that if he was able to cope with God in the argument, the result would be different. As it is, he submits - not because he is convinced, but because he is weak; not because he sees that God is right, but because he sees that he is powerful. How much submission of this kind is there in the world - submision, not to right, but to power; submission to God, not because he is seen to be wise and good, but because he is seen to be almighty, and it is vain to attempt to oppose him! It is needless to say that such feelings evince no true submission.

Verse 30If I wash myself with snow water - If I should make myself as pure as possible, and should become, in my view, perfectly holy. Snow water, it seems, was regarded as especially pure. The whiteness of snow itself perhaps suggested the

idea that the water of melted snow was better than other for purification. Washing the hands formerly was an emblem of cleansing from guilt. Hence Pilate, when he gave up the Savior to death, took water and washed his hands before the multitude, and said that he was innocent of his blood; Matthew 27:24. The expression used here by Job, also is imitated by the Psalmist, to denote his innocence:I will wash mine hands in innocency:So will I compass thine altar, O Lord. Psalm 26:6.Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain,And washed my hands in innocency.Psalm 73:13.So in Shakespeare, Richard III:How fain, like Pilate, would I wash my handsOf this most grievous, guilty murder done!And make my hands never so clean - Or, rather, should I cleanse my hands with lye, or alkali. The word בור bor means properly purity, cleanliness, pureness; and then it is used to denote that which cleanses, alkali, lye, or vegetable salt. The ancients made use of this, mingled with oil, instead of soap, for the purpose of washing, and also in smelting metals, to make them melt more readily; see the note at Isaiah 1:25. The Chaldee renders it accurately, באהלא - in soap. I have no doubt that this is the sense, and that Job means to say, if he should make use of the purest water and of soap to cleanse himself, still he would be regarded as impure. God would throw him at once into the ditch, and he would be covered with moral filth and defilement again in his sight.

Verse 31Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch - God would treat me as if he should throw me into the gutter, and as if I were wholly defiled and polluted. The meaning is, God would not admit the proofs which I should adduce of my innocence, but would overwhelm me with the demonstrations of my guilt. I doubt not that Job urged this with some degree of impatience, and with some improper feelings. He felt, evidently, that God was so great and powerful, that it was vain to contend with him. But it is true in a higher and more important sense than he seems to have understood it. After all the efforts which we can make to justify, vindicate, or purify ourselves, it is in the power of God to overwhelm us with the consciousness of guilt. He has access to the heart. He can show us our past

sins. He can recall what we have forgotten, and overwhelm us with the remembrance of our deep depravity. It is in vain, therefore, for any man to attempt to justify himself before God. After the most labored argument to prove his own innocence, after all the confidence which he can repose in his own morality and his own righteousness, still God can with infinite ease overwhelm him with the consciousness of guilt. How many people that were once relying on their own morality for their salvation, have been bowed down with a consciousness of guilt in a revival of religion! How many who halve been trusting to their own righteousness have been overwhelmed with deep and awful conviction, when they have been brought to lie on a bed of death! Let no man, therefore, rely on his own righteousness, when God accuses him with being a sinner. Let no one trust to his own morality for salvation - for soon it will all be seen to be insufficient, and the soul must appear covered over with the consciousness of guilt at the awful bar of God.And mine own clothes shall abhor me - Margin, Make me to be abhorred. That is, they shall be filthy and offensive - like one who has been rolled in the mire. God has power to make me seem defiled and loathsome, notwithstanding all my efforts to cleanse myself.

Verse 32For he is not a man as I am - He is infinitely superior to me in majesty and power. The idea is, that the contest would be unequal, and that he might as well surrender without bringing the matter to an issue. It is evident that the disposition of Job to yield, was rather because he saw that God was superior in power than because he saw that he was right, and that he felt that if he had ability to manage the cause as well as God could, the matter would not be so much against him as it was then. That there was no little impropriety of feeling in this, no one can doubt; but have we never had feelings like this when we have been afflicted? Have we never submitted to God because we felt that he was Almighty, and that it was vain to contend with him, rather than because he was seen to be right? True submission is always accompanied with the belief that God is RIGHT - whether we can see him to be right or not.And we should come together in judgment - For trial, to have the case adjudicated. That is, that we should meet face to face, and have the cause tried before a superior judge. Noyes.

Verse 33Neither is there any daysman - Margin, One that should argue, or, umpire. The word daysman in English means ” “an umpire or arbiter, a mediator.” Webster. Why such a man is called a daysman I do not know. The Hebrew word rendered “daysman” מוכיח mokıyach is from יכח yakach not used in the Qal, to be before, in front of; and then to appear, to be clear, or manifest; and in the Hiphil, to cause to be manifest, to argue, prove, convince; and then to argue down, to confute, reprove; see the word used in Job 6:25: “What doth your arguing reprove?” It then means to make a cause clear, to judge, determine, decide, as an arbiter, umpire, judge, Isaiah 11:3; Genesis 31:37. Jerome renders it, “Non est qui utrumque valeat arguere.” The Septuagint, “if there were, or, O that there were a mediator ο μεσιτης ho mesites and a reprover ( και ελεγχων kai elengchon ), and one to hear us both” ( και διακουων αναμετον αυφοτερων kai diakouon anameton amphoteron ).The word as used by Job does not mean mediator, but arbiter, umpire, or judge; one before whom the cause might be tried, who could lay the hand of restraint on either party. who could confine the pleadings within proper bounds, who could preserve the parties within the limits of order and propriety, and who had power to determine the question at issue. Job complains that there could be no such tribunal. He feels that God was so great that the cause could be referred to no other, and that he had no prospect of success in the unequal contest. It does not appear, therefore, that he desired a mediator, in the sense in which we understand that word - one who shall come between us and God, and manage our cause before him, and be our advocate at his bar. He rather says that there was no one above God, or no umpire uninterested in the controversy, before whom the cause could be argued, and who would be competent to decide the matter in issue between him and his Maker. He had no hope, therefore, in a cause where one of the parties was to be the judge, and where that party was omnipotent; and he must give up the cause in despair.It is not with strict propriety that this language is ever applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man. He is not an umpire to settle a dispute, in the sense in which Job understood it; he is not an arbiter, to whom the cause in dispute between man and his Maker is to be referred; he is not a judge to listen to the arguments of the respective parties, and to decide the controversy. He is a mediator between us and God, to make it proper or possible that God should be reconciled to the guilty, and to propose to man the terms of

reconciliation; to plead our cause before God, and to communicate to us the favors which he proposes to bestow on man.That might lay his hand upon us both - It is not improbable that this may refer to some ancient ceremony in courts where, for some cause, the umpire or arbiter laid his hand on both the parties. Or, it may mean merely that the umpire had the power of control over both the parties; that it was his office to restrain them within proper limits, to check any improper expressions, and to see that the argument was fairly conducted on both sides. The meaning of the whole here is, that if there were such an umpire, Job would be willing to argue the cause. As it was, it was a hopeless thing, and he could do nothing more than to be silent. That there was irreverence in this language must be admitted; but it is language taken from courts of law, and the substance of it is, that Job could not hope to maintain his cause before one so great and powerful as God.

Verse 34Let him take his rod away from me - Let him suspend my sufferings, and let us come together on equal terms. His terror now is upon me, and I can do nothing. I am oppressed, and broken down, and crushed under his hand, and I could not hope to maintain my cause with any degree of success. If my sufferings were lightened, and I could approach the question with the rigor of health and the power of reasoning unweakened by calamity, I could then do justice to the views which I entertain. Now there would be obvious disparity, while one of the parties has crushed and enervated the other by the mere exercise of power.

Verse 35Then would I speak, and not fear him - I should then be able to maintain my cause on equal terms, and with equal advantages.But it is not so with me - Margin, I am not so with myself. Noyes, “I am not so at heart.” Good, “but not thus could I in my present state.” Literally, “for not thus I with myself.” The Syriac renders it, “for neither am I his adversary.” Very various interpretations have been given of this phrase. The Jews, with Aben Ezra, suppose it means, “for I am not such as you suppose me to be. You take me to be a guilty man; but I am innocent, and if I had a fair opportunity for trial, I could show that I am.” Others suppose it to mean, “I am held to be guilty by the Most High, and am treated accordingly. But I am not so. I am conscious to myself that I am innocent.” It seems to me that Dr. Good has come nearer the true sense than

any other interpreter, and certainly his exposition accords with the connection. According to this the meaning is, “I am not able thus to vindicate myself in my present circumstances. I am oppressed and crushed beneath a lead of calamities. But if these were removed, and if I had a fair opportunity of trial, then I could so state my cause as to make it appear to be just.”In this whole chapter, there is evidently much insubmission and improper feeling. Job submits to power, not to truth and right. He sees and admits that God is able to overwhelm him, but he does not seem disposed to admit that he is right in doing it. He supposes that if he had a fair and full opportunity of trial, he could make his cause good, and that it would be seen that he did not deserve his heavy calamities. There is much of this kind of submission to God even among good people. It is submission because they cannot help it, not because they see the divine dealings to be right. There is nothing cheerful or confiding about it. There is often a secret feeling in the heart that the sufferings are beyond the deserts, and that if the case could be fairly tried, the dealings of God would be found to be harsh and severe. Let us not blame Job for his impatience and irreverent language, until we have carefully examined our own hearts in the times of trial like those which he endured. Let us not infer that he was worse than other men, until we are placed in similar circumstances, and are able to manifest better feelings than he did.

10 Chapter 10 Verse 1My soul is weary of my life - compare the note at Job 7:16. The margin here is, Or,” cut off while I live.” The meaning in the margin is in accordance with the interpretation of Schultens. The Chaldee also renders it in a similar way: אתגזרת my soul is cut off. But the more correct interpretation is that in our common - נפשיversion; and the sense is, that his soul, that is, that he himself was disgusted with life. It was a weary burden, and he wished to die.I will leave my complaint upon myself - Noyes, “I will give myself up to complaint.” Dr. Good, “I will let loose from myself my dark thoughts.” The literal sense is, “I will leave complaint upon myself;” that is, I will give way to it; I will not restrain it; compare Job 7:11.I will speak in the bitterness of my soul - See the notes, Job 7:11.

Verse 2

I will say unto God, Do not condemn me - Do not hold me to be wicked - אל תרשיעני 'al tarshıy‛enıy The sense is, “Do not simply hold me to be wicked,

and treat me as such, without showing me the reasons why I am so regarded.” This was the ground of Job‘s complaint, that God by mere sovereignty and power held him to be a wicked man, and that he did not see the reasons why he was so considered and treated. He now desired to know in what he had offended, and to be made acquainted with the cause of his sufferings. The idea is, that it was unjust to treat one as guilty who had no opportunity of knowing the nature of the offence with which he was charged, or the reason why he was condemned.

Verse 3Is it good unto thee that thou shouldest oppress - The sense of this is, that it could not be with God a matter of personal gratification to inflict pain wantonly. There must be a reason why he did it. This was clear to Job, and he was anxious, therefore, to know the reason why he was treated in this manner. Yet there is evidently here not a little of the spirit of complaining. There is an insinuation that God was afflicting him beyond what he deserved; see Job 10:7. The state of his mind appears to have been this: he is conscious to himself that he is a sincere friend of God, and he is unwilling to believe that God can wantonly inflict pain - and yet he has no other way of accounting for it. He is in a sort driven to this painful conclusion - and he asks with deep feeling, whether it can be so? Is there no other solution than this? Is there no way of explaining the fact that he suffers so much, than either the supposition that he is a hypocrite - which he feels assured he is not; or that God took a wanton pleasure in inflicting pain - which he was as little disposed to believe, if he could avoid it? Yet his mind rather verges to this latter belief, for he seems more disposed to believe that God was severe than that he himself was a hypocrite and a wicked man. Neither of these conclusions was necessary. If he had taken a middle ground, and had adverted to the fact that God might afflict his own children for their good, the mystery would have been solved. He could have retained the consciousness of his integrity, and at the same time his confidence in God.That thou shouldest despise the work of thine hands - Margin, labor. That is, despise man, or treat him as if he were of no value. The idea is, that it would be natural for God to love his own work, and that his treatment of Job seemed as if he regarded his own workmanship - man - as of no value.

And shine upon the counsel of the wicked - By giving them health and prosperity.

Verse 4Hast thou eyes of flesh? - Eyes like man. Dost thou look upon man with the same disposition to discern faults; the same uncharitableness and inclination to construe everything in the severest manner possible, which characterizes man? Possibly Job may have reference here to the harsh judgment of his friends, and means to ask whether it could be possible for God to evince the same feelings in judging of him which they had done.

Verse 5Are thy days as the days of man - Does thy life pass on like that of man? Dost thou expect soon to die, that thou dost pursue me in this manner, searching out my sins, and afflicting me as if there were no time to lose? The idea is, that God seemed to press this matter as if he were soon to cease to exist, and as if there were no time to spare in accomplishing it. His strokes were unintermitted, as if it were necessary that the work should be done soon, and as if no respite could be given for a full and fair development of the real character of the sufferer. The whole passage Job 10:4-7 expresses the settled conviction of Job that God could not resemble man; Man was short lived, fickle, blind; he was incapable, from the brevity of his existence, and from his imperfections, of judging correctly of the character of others. But it could not be so with God. He was eternal. He knew the heart. He saw everything as it was. Why, then, Job asks with deep feeling, did he deal with him as if he were influenced by the methods of judgment which were inseparable from the condition of imperfect and dying man?

Verse 6That thou inquirest after mine iniquity - Art thou governed by hu man passions and prejudices, that thou dost thus seem to search out every little obliquity and error? Job here evidently refers to the conduct of man in strictly marking faults, and in being unwilling to forgive; and he asks whether it is possible that God could be governed by such feelings as these.

Verse 7

Thou knowest that I am not wicked - That is, that I am not a hypocrite, or an impenitent sinner. Job did not claim perfection (see the note at Job 9:20), but he maintained through all this argument that he was not a wicked man, in the sense in which his friends regarded him as such, and for the truth of this he could boldly appeal to God. The margin is, “It is upon thy knowledge.” This is a literal translation of the Hebrew, but the sense is well expressed in the text. The meaning of the verse is, “Why dost thou thus afflict me, when thou knowest that I am not wicked? Why am I treated as if I were the worst of men? Why is occasion thus furnished for my friends to construct an argument as if I were a man of singular depravity?”There is none that can deliver out of thine hand - I have no power to release myself. Job felt hat God had almighty power; and he seems to have felt that his sufferings were rather the simple exertion of power, than the exercise of justice. It was this that laid the foundation for his complaint.

Verse 8Thine hands have made me - Job proceeds now to state that he had been made by God, and that he had shown great skill and pains in his formation. He argues that it would seem like caprice to take such pains, and to exercise such amazing wisdom and care in forming him, and then, on a sudden, and without cause, dash his own work to pieces. Who makes a beautiful vase only to be destroyed? Who moulds a statue from marble only to break it to pieces? Who builds a splendid edifice only to pull it down? Who plants a rare and precious flower only to have the pleasure of plucking it up? The statement in Job 10:8-12, is not only beautiful and forcible as an argument, but is especially interesting and valuable, as it may be presumed to embody the views in the patriarchal age about the formation and the laws of the human frame. No inconsiderable part of the value of the book of Job, as was remarked in the Introduction, arises from the incidental notices of the sciences as they prevailed at the time when it was composed.If it is the oldest book in the world, it is an invaluable record on these points. The expression, “thine hands have made me,” is in the margin, “took pains about me.” Dr. Good renders it, “have wrought me;” Noyes, “completely fashioned me;” Rosenmuller explains it to mean, “have formed me with the highest diligence and care.” Schultens renders it, Manus tuae nervis colligarunt - “thy hands have bound me with nerves or sinews;” and appeals to the use of the Arabic as

authority for this interpretation. He maintains (De Defectibus hodiernis Ling. Hebr. pp. 142,144,151), that the Arabic word atzaba denotes “the body united and bound in a beautiful form by nerves and tendons;” and that the idea here is, that God had so constructed the human frame. The Hebrew word used here (עצב ‛atsab ) means properly to work, form, fashion. The primary idea, according to Gesenius, is, that of cutting, both wood and stone, and hence, to cut or carve with a view to the forming of an image. The verb also has the idea of labor, pain, travail, grief; perhaps from the labor of cutting or carving a stone or a block of wood. Hence it means, in the Piel, to form or fashion, with the idea of labor or toil; and the sense here is undoubtedly, that God had elaborated the bodies of men with care and skill, like that bestowed on a carved image or statue. The margin expresses the idea not badly - took pains about me.And fashioned me - Made me. The Hebrew here means simply to make.Together round about - יחד סביב yachad sabıyb Vulgate, totum in circuitu. Septuagint simply, “made me.” Dr. Good, “moulded me compact on all sides.” The word יחד yachad rendered “together,” has the notion of oneness, or union. It may refer to the oneness of the man - the making of one from the apparently discordant materials, and the compact form in which the body, though composed of bones, and sinews, and blood-vessels, is constructed. A similar idea is expressed by Lucretius, as quoted by Schultens. Lib. iii. 358:- Qui coetu, conjugioqueCorporis atque anirnae consistimus uniter apti.Yet thou dost destroy me - Notwithstanding I am thus made, yet thou art taking down my frame, as if it were of no consequence, and formed with no care.

Verse 9Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay - There is evident allusion here to the creation of man, and to the fact that he was moulded from the dust of the earth - a fact which would be preserved by tradition; see Genesis 2:7. The fact that God had moulded the human form as the potter moulds the clay, is one that is often referred to in the Scriptures; compare Romans 9:20-21. The object of Job in this is, probably, to recall the fact that God, out of clay, had formed the noble structure, man, and to ask whether it was his intention to reduce that structure again to its former worthless condition - to destroy its beauty, and to efface the remembrance of his workmanship? Was it

becoming God thus to blot out every memorial of his own power and skill in moulding the human frame?

Verse 10Hast thou not poured me out as milk? - The whole image in this verse and the following, is designed to fur nish an illustration of the origin and growth of the human frame. The Note of Dr. Good may be transcribed, as furnishing an illustration of what may have possibly been the meaning of Job. “The whole of the simile is highly correct and beautiful, and has not been neglected by the best poets of Greece and Rome. From the well-tempered or mingled milk of the chyle, every individual atom of every individual organ in the human frame, the most compact and consolidated, as well as the soft and pliable, is perpetually supplied and renewed, through the medium of a system of lacteals or milk-vessels, as they are usually called in anatomy, from the nature of this common chyle or milk which they circulate. Into the delicate stomach of the infant it is introduced in the form of milk; but even in the adult it must be reduced to some such form, whatever be the substance he feed upon, by the conjoint action of the stomach and other chylifactive organs, before it can become the basis of animal nutriment.It then circulates through the system, and either continues fluid as milk in its simple state, or is rendered solid as milk is in its caseous or cheese-state, according to the nature of the organ which it supplies with its vital current.” True as this is, however, as a matter of physiology, now well understood, a doubt may arise whether Job was acquainted with the method thus described, in which man is sustained. The idea of Job is, that God was the author of the human frame, and that that frame was so formed as to evince his wonderful and incomprehensible wisdom. A consultation of the works on physiology, which explain the facts about the formation and the growth of the human body, will show that there are few things which more strikingly evince the wisdom of God than the formation of the human frame, alike at its origin, and in every stage of its development. It is a subject, however, which cannot, with propriety, be pursued in a work of this kind.

Verse 11Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh - This refers, undoubtedly, to the formation of man in his foetal existence, and is designed to denote that the whole organization of the human frame was to be traced to God. Grotius remarks that

this is the order in which the infant is formed - that the skin appears first, then the flesh, then the harder parts of the frame. On this subject, the reader may consult Dunglison‘s Physiology, vol. ii. p. 340ff.And hast fenced me - Margin, Hedged. Literally, Hast covered me. The sense is plain. God had formed him as he was, and to him he owed his life, and all that he had. Job asks with the deepest interest whether God would take down a frame formed in this manner, and reduce it again to dust? Would it not be more for his honor to preserve it still - at least to the common limit of human life?

Verse 12Thy visitation hath preserved my spirit - Thy constant care; thy watchful providence; thy superintendence. The word rendered visitation (פקדה pequddah ) means properly the mustering of an army, the care that is manifested in looking after those who are enlisted; and then denotes care, vigilance, providence, custody, watch. The idea is, that God had watched over him and preserved him, and that to his constant vigilance he owed the preservation of his life.

Verse 13And these things hast thou hid in thine heart - This may either refer to the arrangements by which God had made him, or to the calamities which he had brought upon him. Most expositors suppose that the latter is intended. Such is the opinion of Rosenmuller, Good, Noyes, and Scott. According to this the idea is, that God had purposed in his heart to bring these calamities upon him. They were a part of his counsel and design. To hide in the heart, or to lay up in the heart, is a phrase expressive of a secret purpose. I see no reason to confine it, however, to the calamities which Job had experienced. It may refer to all the plans and doings of the Most High, to which Job had just referred. All his acts in the creation and preservation of man, were a part of his secret counsel, He had formed the plan in his heart, and was now executing it in the various dispensations of his providence.I know that this is with thee - That all this is a part of thy purpose. It has its origin in thee, and is according to thy counsel. This is the language of piety, recognizing the great truth that all things are in accordance with the purposes of God, or that his plans embrace all events - a doctrine which Job most assuredly held.

Verse 14If I sin - The object of this verse and the following is, evidently, to say that he was wholly perplexed. He did not know how to act. He could not understand the reason of the divine dealings, and he was wholly unable to explain them, and hence, he did not know how to act in a proper manner. It is expressive of a state of mind where the individual wishes to think and feel right, but where he finds so much to perplex him, that he does not know what to do. Job was sure that his friends were not right in the position which they maintained - that he was a sinner of enormous character, and that his sufferings were proof of this, and yet he did not know how to answer their arguments. He desired to have confidence in God, and yet he knew not how to reconcile his dealings with his sense of right. He felt that he was a friend of God, and he did not know why he should visit one who had this consciousness in this distressing and painful manner. His mind was perplexed, vacillating, embarrassed, and he did not know what to do or say. The truth in this whole argument was, that he was more often right than his friends, but that he, in common with them, had embraced some principles which he was compelled to admit to be true, or which he could not demonstrate to be false, which gave them greatly the advantage in the argument, and which they pressed upon him now with overwhelming force.Then thou markest me - Dost carefully observe every fault. Why he did this, Job could not see. The same difficulty he expressed in Job 7:17-19; see the notes at that place.And wilt not acquit me - Wilt not pardon me. Job did not understand why God would not do this. It was exceedingly perplexing to him that God held him to be guilty, and would not pardon him if he had sinned. The same perplexity he expressed in Job 7:21; see the note at that verse.

Verse 15If I be wicked, woe unto me - The meaning of this in this connection is, “I am full of perplexity and sorrow. Whether I am wicked or righteous, I find no comfort. Whatever is my character, my efforts to be happy are unavailing, and my mind is full of anguish. Woe follows if I have been guilty of sin; and if I am not a sinful man, I am equally incapable of enjoyment. In every way I am doomed to wretchedness.” And if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. That is, with confidence and cheerfulness. The meaning is, that though he was conscious that he was not a hypocrite, yet he did not know what to do. God treated him as if he

were wicked, and his friends regarded him as such, and he was overwhelmed with the perplexities of his situation. He could not lift up his head with confidence, though he was certain that he was not a sinner in the sense in which they charged him with being such; and yet since he was treated by God in a manner so similar to the mode in which the wicked are treated, he felt ashamed and confounded. Who has not felt the same thing? Who has not experienced a sense of shame and mortification at being sick, - a proof of guilt, and an expression of the hatred of God against sin? Who has not felt humbled that he must die, as the most vile of the race must die, and that his body must become the “prey of corruption” and “the banquet of worms,” as a demonstration of guilt? Such humiliation Job experienced. He was treated as if he were the vilest of sinners. He endured from God sufferings such as they endure. He was so regarded by his friends. He felt humbled and mortified that he was brought into this situation, and was ashamed that he could not meet the arguments of his friends.I am full of confusion - Shame, ignominy, distress, and perplexity. On every side there was embarrassment, and he knew not what to do. His friends regarded him as vile, and he could not but admit that he was so treated by God.Therefore see thou mine affliction - The word rendered here “see” (ראה ra'ah ) in the imperative, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and others suppose should be regarded as in the infinitive absolute, the finite verb being understood; “seeing I see my affliction,” that is, I certainly see it. So the Chaldee and the Syriac render it, and this agrees better with the connection of the passage. “I see the depth of my affliction. I cannot hide it from myself. I see, and must admit, that God treats me as if I were a sinner, and I am greatly perplexed and embarrassed by that fact. My mind is in confusion, and I know not what to say.”

Verse 16For it increaseth - Our translators understand this as meaning that the calamities of Job, so far from becoming less, were constantly increasing, and thus augmenting his perplexity and embarrassment. But a somewhat different explanation is given to it by many interpreters. The word rendered “increaseth” ( ga'ah ) means properly, to lift up, to lift up oneself, to rise; and Gesenius גאהsupposes that it refers here to “the head,” and that the meaning is, “if it lift up itself (sc. my head), thou huntest me as a lion.” It cannot be denied that the notion of pride, elation, haughtiness, is usually connected with the use of the word, but it is not necessary here to depart from the common interpretation,

meaning that the increase of his affliction greatly augmented his perplexity. Jerome, however, readers it, “and on account of pride, thou dost seize me as a lioness.” The idea is, “my affliction, as it were, exalts itself, or, becomes more and more prominent.” This is a better interpretation than to refer it to the raising up of his head.Thou huntest me as a fierce lion - On the meaning of the word here rendered “fierce lion” שחל shachal see the notes at Job 4:10. The sense here is, that God hunted or followed him as a fierce lion pursued his prey.And again thou showest thyself marvelous - Or rather, “thou turnest, and art wonderful toward me.” The meaning is, that he did not at once spring upon his prey and then leave it, but he came back as if it had not been put to death when first seized, as if a lion should come back and torture his victim again. The meaning of the phrase “shewest thyself marvelous” is, that the dealings of God toward him were wonderful. They were wholly incomprehensible. He had no means of finding out the reasons of his doings. On the word used here, compare the notes at Isaiah 9:6.

Verse 17Thou renewest thy witnesses against me - Margin, “that is, plagues.” The Hebrew is, “thy witnesses” - ,edeyka So the Vulgate. The Septuagint is‛ עדיך “renewing against me my examination,” την εξετασιν μου ten ecetasin mou Rabbi Levi supposes that the plague of the leprosy is intended. But the true meaning seems to be, that God sent upon him calamities which were regarded by his friends as “proofs” or “witnesses” that he was wicked, the public and solemn attestation of God, as they supposed, to the truth that he was eminently a bad man. New proofs of this kind were constantly occurring in his augmenting and protracted sorrows, and he could not answer the arguments which were brought from them by his friends.Changes and war are against me - Or rather, are “with me,” ımy There‛ עמי were with him such reverses of condition as laid the foundation for the argument which they had urged with so much pertinacity and force that he was punished by God. The word rendered “changes” ( chalıyphah חליפה) means properly “changes,” or exchanges, and is applied to garments, 2 Kings 5:5 , 2 Kings 5:22- 23. It may be used also of soldiers keeping watch until they are relieved by a succeeding guard; see the note at Job 14:14. Here it is not improbably employed in the sense of a succession of attacks made on him. One succeeds another, as

if platoon after platoon, to use the modern terms, or phalanx after phalanx, should come up against him. As soon as one had discharged its arrows, another succeeded in its place; or as soon as one became ex hausted, it was followed by a fresh recruit. All this Job could not endure. The succession wearied him, and he could not bear it. Dr. Good supposes that the word refers to the skirmishes by which a battle is usually introduced, in which two armies attempt to gall each other before they are engaged. But the true idea, as it seems to me, is, that afflictions succeeded each other as soldiers on a watch, or in a battle, relieve each other. When one set is exhausted on duty, it is succeeded by another. Or, when in battle one company has discharged its weapons, or is exhausted, it is succeeded by those who are brought fresh into the field. The word rendered “war” (צבא tsaba' ) properly means an army or a host; see the note at Job 7:1. Here it means that a whole host had rushed upon him. Not only had he been galled by the succession, the relief-guard of calamities, the attacks which had followed each other from an advanced guard, or from scouts sent out to skirmish, but the whole army was upon him. A whole host of calamities came rushing upon him alone, and he could not endure them.

Verse 18Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth - See the notes at Job 3:11.

Verse 19I should have been carried from the womb to the grave - See the notes at Job 3:16.

Verse 20Are not my days few? - My life is short, and hastens to a close. Let not then my afflictions be continued to the last moment of life, but let thine hand be removed, that I may enjoy some rest before I go hence, to return no more. This is an address to God, and the meaning is, that as life was necessarily so short, he asked to be permitted to enjoy some comfort before he should go to the land of darkness and of death; compare the note at Job 7:21. A somewhat similar expression occurs in Psalm 39:13:O spare me, that I may recover strength,Before I go hence, and be no more.

Verse 21Before I go - from where “I shall not return.” To the grave, to the land of shades, to“That undiscovered country, from whose bourneNo traveler returns.”To the land of darkness - This passage is important as furnishing an illustration of what was early understood about the regions of the dead. The essential idea here is that it was a land of darkness, of total and absolute night. This idea Job presents in a great variety of forms and phrases. He amplifies it, and uses apparently all the epithets which he can command to represent the utter and entire darkness of the place. The place referred to is not the grave, but the region beyond, the abode of departed spirits, the Hades of the ancients; and the idea here is, that it is a place where not a clear ray of light ever shines. That this was a common opinion of the ancients in regard to the world of departed spirits, is well known. Virgil thus speaks of those gloomy regions:Oii, quibusimperium est animarum, umbraeque silentes,Et Chaos, et Phlegethon, loca nocte tacentia late,Sit mihi fas audita loqui; slt numine vestroPandere res alta terra et caligine mersas.Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram,Perque domos Ditis vacuas, et inania regna:Quale per incertam lunam sub luce malignaEst iter in silvis: ubi coelum condidit umbraJupiter, et rebus nox abstulit atra coloremAeneid vi. 259ffA similar view of Hades was held by the Greeks. Thus, Theognis, 1007:Ως μακαρ ευδυιμων τε και ολβιος, οστις απειροςΑθλων, εις η δου δωμα μελαν κατεβη. Hos makar eudaimon te kai olbios hostis apeiros Athlon eis h' dou doma melan katebe is nowhere to be found, however, a description which for intensity and emphasis of expression surpasses this of Job.Shadow of death - See this phrase explained in the note at Job 3:5.

Verse 22A land of darkness - The word used here (עיפה ‛eyphah ) is different from that rendered “darkness” choshek in the previous verse. That is the common השך

word to denote darkness; this seldom occurs. It is derived from עוף ‛uph to fly; and then to cover as with wings; and hence, the noun means that which is shaded or dark; Amos 4:13; compare Job 17:13; Isaiah 8:22; Isaiah 9:1.As darkness itself - This is still another word אפל 'ophel though in our common version but one term is used. We have not the means in our language of marking different degrees of obscurity with the accuracy with which the Hebrews did it. The word used here אפל 'ophel denotes a THICK darkness - such as exists when the sun is set - from אפל 'aphel to go down, to set. It is poetic, and is used to denote intense and deep darkness; see Job 3:6.And of the shadow of death - I would prefer reading this as connected with the previous word - “the deep darkness of the shadow of death.” The Hebrew will bear this, and indeed it is the obvious construction.Without any order - The word rendered order (סדרים sedarıym ) is in the plural. It is from סדר, obsolete, to place in a row or order, to arrange. The meaning is, that everything was mingled together as in chaos, and all was confusion. Milton has used similar language:- “A vast immeasurable abyss.”- “dark, wasteful, wild.”Ovid uses similar language in speaking of chaos: “Unus chaos, rudis indigestaque moles.”And where the light is as darkness - This is a very striking and graphic expression. It means that there is no pure and clear light. Even all the light that shines there is dark, sombre, gloomy - like the little light of a total eclipse, which seems to be darkness itself, and which only serves to render the darkness more distressing. Compare Milton:“A dungeon horrible on all sides round,As one great furnace flamed, yet from those flamesNo light; but rather darkness visibleServed only to discover sights of woe.”Par. Lost, 1.The Hebrew here literally is, “And it shines forth (יתפע yatopha‛ ) as darkness:” that is, the very shining of the light there, if there is any, is like darkness! Such was the view of Job of the abodes of the dead - even of the pious dead. No wonder he shrank back from it, and wished to live. Such is the prospect of the grave to man, until Christianity comes and reveals a brighter world beyond the grave - a world that is all light. That darkness is now scattered. A clear light

shines even around the grave, and beyond there is a world where all is light, and where “there is no night,” and where all is one bright eternal day; Revelation 21:23; Revelation 22:5. O had Job been favored with these views of heaven, he would not have thus feared to die!

11 Chapter 11 Verse 2Should not the multitude of words be answered? - As if all that Job had said had been mere words; or as if he was remarkable for mere garrulity.And should a man full of talk be justified - Margin, as in Hebrew “of lips.” The phrase is evidently a Hebraism, to denote a great talker - a man of mere lips, or empty sound. Zophar asks whether such a man could be justified or vindicated. It will be recollected that taciturnity was with the Orientals a much greater virtue than with us, and that it was regarded as one of the proofs of wisdom. The wise man with them was he who sat down at the feet of age, and desired to learn; who carefully collected the maxims of former times; who diligently observed the course of events; and who deliberated with care on what others had to say. Thus, Solomon says, “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise;” Proverbs 10:19; so James 1:19, “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak.” It was supposed that a man who said much would say some foolish or improper things, and hence, it was regarded as a proof of prudence to be distinguished for silence. In Oriental countries, and it may be added also, in all countries that we regard as uncivilized, it is unusual and disrespectful to be hasty in offering counsel, to be forward to speak, or to be confident and bold in opinion; see the notes at Job 32:6-7. It was for reasons such as these that Zophar maintained that a man who was full of talk could not be justified in it; that there was presumptive proof that he was not a safe man, or a man who could be vindicated in all that he said.

Verse 3Should thy lies - Margin, “devices.” Rosenmuller renders this, “should men bear thy boastings with silence?” Dr. Good, “before thee would man-kind keep silence?” Vulgate, “tibi soli tacebunt homines?” “Shall men be silent before thee alone? The Septuagint tenders the whole passage, “he who speaketh much should also hear in turn; else the fine speaker ( ευλαλος eulalos ) thinketh himself just. - Blessed be the short-lived offspring of woman. Be not profuse of words, for

there is no one that judges against thee, and do not say that I am pure in works and blameless before him?” How this was made out of the Hebrew, or what is its exact sense, I am unable to say. There can be no doubt, I think, that our present translation is altogether too harsh, and that Zophar by no means designs to charge Job with uttering lies. The Hebrew word commonly used for lies, is wholly different from that which is used here. The word here (בד bad ) denotes properly “separation;” then a part; and in various combinations as a preposition, “alone separate.” “besides.” Then the noun means empty talk, vain boasting; and then it may denote lies or falsehood. The leading idea is that of separation or of remoteness from anything, as from prudence, wisdom, propriety, or truth. It is a general term, like our word “bad,” which I presume has been derived from this Hebrew word (בד bad ), or from the Arabic “bad.” In the plural (בדים badıym ) it is rendered “liars” in Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 50:36; “lies” in Job 11:3; Isaiah 16:6; Jeremiah 48:30; and “parts” in Job 41:12. It is also often rendered “staves,” Exodus 27:6; Exodus 25:14-15, Exodus 25:28, et sap, at. That it may mean “lies” here I admit, but it may also mean talk that is aside from propriety, and may refer here to a kind of discourse that was destitute of propriety, empty, vain talk.And when thou mockest - That-is, “shalt thou be permitted to use the language of reproach and of complaint, and no one attempt to make thee sensible of its impropriety?” The complaints and arguments of Job he represented as in fact mocking God.Shall no man make thee ashamed? - Shall no one show thee the impropriety of it, and bring thy mind to a sense of shame for what it has done? This was what Zophar now proposed to do.

Verse 4My doctrine is pure - The Septuagint instead of the word “doctrine” here reads “deeds,” εργοις ergois the Syriac, “thou sayest I have acted justly.” But the word used here (לקח leqach ) means properly “fair speech” or “taking arguments,” that by which one is “taken” or captivated, from לקח laqach “to take.” Then it means doctrine, or instruction, Proverbs 1:5; Proverbs 9:9. Here it means the views which Job had expressed. Dr. Good supposes that it means “conduct,” a word which would suit the connection, but the Hebrew is not used in this sense.And I am clean in thine eyes - In the eyes of God, or in his sight. This was a false charge. Job had never maintained that he was perfect (compare the notes at Job 9:20); he had only maintained that he was not such a sinner as his friends

maintained that he was, a hypocrite, and a man eminent for guilt. His lack of absolute perfection he was ever ready to admit and mourn over.

Verse 5But oh that God would speak - Hebrew, “and truly, who will give that God should speak.” It is the expression of an earnest wish that God would address him, and bring him to a proper sense of his ill desert. The meaning is, that if God should speak to him he would by no means find himself so holy as he now claimed to be.

Verse 6And that he would show thee the secrets of wisdom - The hidden things that pertain to wisdom. The reference here is to the wisdom of God himself. The sense is this, “you now think yourself pure and holy. You have confidence in your own wisdom and integrity. But this apprehension is based on a short-sighted view of God, and on ignorance of him. If he would speak and show you his wisdom; if he would express his sense of what purity is, you would at once see how far you have come from perfection, and would be overwhelmed with a sense of your comparative vileness and sin.”That they are double to that which is - Noyes renders this,” his wisdom which is unsearchable.” Dr. Good, strangely enough, “for they are intricacies to iniquity.” The expression, as it stands in our common version, is not very intelligible; and indeed it is difficult, to attach any idea to it. Of the words used in the Hebrew, the sense is not difficult. The word kaphal “to כפל kıplayım “double,” is from כפלים fold,”” to double;” and means a doubling Job 41:5; and then two folds, or double folds, and the sense here is, that the wisdom of God is “double-fold;” that is, complicated, inexplicable, or manifold. It is not spread out and plain, but is infolded, so that it requires to be unrolled to be understood. The word rendered “that which is” (תשיה tushıyah ), means properly a setting upright, uprightness - from ,yasha‛ Hence ישע it means help, deliverance, Job 6:13; purpose, undertaking, see the notes at Job 5:12; and then counsel, wisdom, understanding, Job 12:16; Isaiah 28:29. It means here, I suppose, “understanding;” and the idea is, that the wisdom of God is “double of understanding;” that is, it is so infolded, so complex, that it greatly surpasses our comprehension. What we see is a small part of it; and the “secrets” of his wisdom - the parts of his wisdom which are not unfolded, are far above our grasp. His

wisdom is like a vast roll or volume, only the first and a very small part of which is unrolled so that we can read it. But who can look into that that remains unopened, and penetrate between the involutions, so as to perceive and read it all? It is but little that is now unrolled of the mighty volume - the remainder will be unfolded as years and ages shall pass on, and the entire unfolding of the book will be reserved for eternity.Know, therefore, that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth - The word here rendered “exacteth” (ישה yasheh ) more properly means “to forget” - from נשה nashah It also means to loan on usury, or to borrow; but the sense here is rather that of forgetting. It is not used in the sense of exacting. The true meaning is, “know, therefore, that for thee God hath caused to be forgotten a part of thy iniquity.” That is, he has treated you as if he had caused a part of your sins to be out of mind, or as if they were not remembered. Instead of treating you, as you complain, with severity, he has by no means inflicted on you the calamities which you deserve. The ground of this unfeeling assertion is the abstract proposition that God is infinitely wiser than human beings; that he has a deeper insight into human guilt than people can have; and that if he should disclose to us all that he sees of the heart, we should be amazed at the revelations of our own sins. This sentiment is undoubtedly true, and accords almost cxactly with what Job had himself said Job 9:19-22, but there is something very harsh and severe in the manner in which Zophar applies it.

Verse 7Canst then, by searching, find out God? - In order to illustrate the sentiment which he had just expressed, that the secrets of divine wisdom must be far above our comprehension, Zophar introduces here this sublime description of God - a description which seems to have the form and force of a proverb. It seems to have been a settled opinion that man could not find out the Almighty to perfection by his own powers - a sentiment, which is as true now, as it was then, and which is of the utmost importance in all our inquiries about the Creator. The sentiment is expressed in a most beautiful manner; and the language itself is not unworthy of the theme. The word “searching,” חקר cheqer is from חקר chaqar to search, to search out, to examine; and the primary sense, according to Gesenius, lies in searching in the earth by boring or digging - as for metals. Then it means to search with diligence and care. Here it means that by the utmost attention in examining the works of God, it would be impossible for man to find out the

Almighty to perfection. All the investigations which have been made of God, have fallen short of the object; and at the present time it is as true as it was in the days of Job, that we cannot, by searching, find him out. Of much that pertains to him and his plans we must be content to remain in ignorance, until we are admitted to the revelations of a higher world - happy and thankful now that we are permitted to know so much of him as we do, and that we are apprized of the existence of one infinite and perfect mind. It is an inexpressible privilege to know “anything” of God; and it is proof of the exalted nature of man, that he is now capable of becoming in any degree acquainted with the divine nature.

Verse 8It is as high as heaven - That is, the knowledge of God; or the subject is as high as heaven. The idea is, that man is incompetent to examine, with accuracy, an object that is as far off as the heavens; and that as the knowledge of God must be of that character, it is vain for him to attempt to investigate it fully. There is an energy in the Hebrew which is lost in our common translation. The Hebrew is abrupt and very emphatic: “The heights of the heavens!” It is the language of one looking up with astonishment at the high heavens, and over-powered with the thought that the knowledge of God must be higher even than those distant skies. Who can hope to understand it? Who can be qualified to make the investigation? It is a matter of simple but sublime truth, that God must be higher than these heavens; and when we take into view the amazing distances of many of the heavenly bodies, as now known by the aid of modern astronomy, we may ask with deeper emphasis by far than Zophar did. “Can we, by searching, find out God?”Deeper than hell - Hebrew “Than Sheol” - meshe'ol The משאול Septuagint renders this, “the heaven is high, what canst thou do? And there are things deeper than in Hades - βαθυτερα των εν αδου bathutera ton en Hadou - what dost thou know?” On the meaning of the word Sheol, see Isaiah 5:14, note; Isaiah 14:9, note. It seems to have been supposed to be as deep as the heavens are high; and the idea here is, that it would be impossible for man to investigate a subject that was as profound as Sheol was deep. The idea is not that God was in Sheol, but that the subject was as profound as the abode of departed spirits was deep and remote. It is possible that the Psalmist may have had this passage in his eye in the similar expression, occurring in Psalm 139:If I ascend into heaven, thou art there;

If I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there.

Verse 9The measure thereof is longer than the earth - The measure of the knowledge of God. The extent of the earth would be one of the longest measures known to the ancients. Yet it is now impossible to ascertain what ideas were attached, in the time of Job, to the extent of the earth - and it is not necessary to know this in order to understand this expression. It is morally certain that the prevailing ideas were very limited, and that a small part of the earth was then known. The general belief seems to have been, that it was a vast plain, surrounded by water - but how supported, and what were its limits, were evidently matters to them unknown. The earliest knowledge which we have of geography, as understood by the Arabs, represents the earth as wholly encompassed by an ocean, like a zone. This was usually characterized as a “Sea of Darkness;” an appellation usually given to the Atlantic; while to the Northern Sea was given the name of “The Sea of Pitchy Darkness.” Edrisi imagined the land to be floating in the sea, and only part appearing above, like an egg in a basin of water. If these views prevailed so late as the tenth and eleventh centuries of the Christian era, it is reasonable to conclude that the views of the figure and size of the earth must have been extremely limited in the time of Job. On the ancient views of geography, see the notes at Job 26:7-10, and the maps there, also Murray‘s Encyclopaedia of Geography, Book I, and Eschenberg‘s Manual of Classical Literature, by Prof. Fiske, Part I.And broader than the sea - What was the idea of the breadth of the sea, which was supposed to surround the earth, it is now wholly impossible to determine. Probably there were no ideas on the subject that could be regarded as settled and definite. The ancients had no means of ascertaining this, and they perhaps supposed that the ocean extended to an unlimited extent - or, perhaps, to the far distant place where the sky and the water appeared to meet. At all events it was an illustration then, as it is now, of a vast distance, and is not inappropriately used here to denote the impossibility of fully understanding God. This illustration would be far more striking then than now. We have crossed the ocean; and we do not deem it an impracticable thing to explore the remotest seas. But not so the ancients. They kept close to the shore. They seldom ventured out of sight of land. The enterprise of exploring and crossing the vast ocean, which they

supposed encompassed the globe, was regarded by them as wholly impracticable - and equally so they correctly supposed it was to find out God.

Verse 10If he cut off - Margin, “Make a change.” But neither of these phrases properly expresses the sense of the original. The whole image here is probably that of arresting a criminal and bringing him to trial, and the language is taken from the mode of conducting a prosecution. The word rendered “cut off” - יחלף yachalop from - chalaph חלף means properly to pass along; to pass on; then to pass against anyone, to rush on, to assail; and in a remote sense in the Piel and the Hiphil, to cause to pass on or away, that is, to change. This is the sense expressed in the margin. The idea is not that of cutting off, but is that of making a rush upon a man, for the purpose of arresting him and bringing him to trial. There are frequent references to such trials in the book of Job. The Chaldee renders this, “if he pass on and shut up the heavens with clouds” - but the paraphrasist evidently did not understand the passage.And shut up - That is, imprison or detain with a view to trial. Some such detention is always practiced of necessity before trial.Or gather together - Gather together the parties for trial; or rather call the individual into court for trial. The word קהל qahal means properly to call together, to convoke, as a people; and is used to denote the custom of assembling the people for a trial - or, as we would say, to “call the court,” which is now the office of a crier.Then who can hinder him? - Margin, “Who can turn him away?” He has all power, and no one can resist him. No one can deliver the criminal from his hands. Zophar here is in fact repeating in another form what Job had himself said (Job 9:3 ff), and the sentiment seems to be proverbial. The idea here is, that if God should call a man into judgment, and hold him guilty, he could neither answer nor resist him. God is so great; he so intimately knows the human heart; he has so thorough an acquaintance with all our past sins, that we cannot hope to answer him or escape. Zophar argues on this principle: “God holds you to be guilty. He is punishing you accordingly. You do not feel it so, or suppose that you deserve all this. But he sees your heart, and knows all your life. If he holds you to be guilty, it is so. You cannot answer him, and you should so regard it, and submit.”

Verse 11For he knoweth vain men - He is intimately acquainted with the heart; he knows human beings altogether. The word “vain” here (שוא shav' ), means properly vanity, emptiness, falsehood, a lie, iniquity. “Men of vanity,” here may mean people whose opinions are valueless, or it may mean people of deceit, falsehood, hypocrisy. Most probably it means the latter, and the indirect reference may be to such men as Job. The sense is, that God is intimately acquainted with such men. They cannot deceive him, and their wickedness will be found out.Will he not then consider it? - Various ways have been proposed of explaining this. By some it is supposed to mean, “He seeth iniquity, where they do not observe it;” that is, he perceives it, where people do not themselves. This would express a thought which would accord well with the connection, but it is doubtful whether the Hebrew will bear this construction. By another explanation it is supposed to mean, as in our common version, “Will not God observe it, and bring it to trial? Will he suffer it to pass unnoticed?” This makes good sense, and the Hebrew will admit of this interpretation. But there is another view still, which is preferable to either. According to this it means, that God perceives the iniquity in man, though he does not seem to notice it; see the notes at Job 11:6. He appears to pass over a part of it, but he sees it notwithstanding, and is intimately acquainted with all the depravity of the heart. The main reference here is to Job, and the object is to show him that he was guilty, though he had asserted his innocence in so decided a manner. Though he seemed to himself to be innocent, yet Zophar labors to show him that he must be guilty, and that he had seen but a small part of his sins.

Verse 12For vain man - Margin, “empty.” nabub according to Gesenius, from the נבוב root ”,nabab to bore through, and then to be hollow; metaphorical, “empty נבב “foolish.” The Septuagint, strangely enough, renders this,” but man floats about with words.” The Hebrew here means, manifestly, hollow, empty; then insincere and hypocritical. Zophar refers to a hollow-hearted man, who, though he was in fact like a wild ass‘s colt, attempted to appear mild and gentle, and to have a heart. The meaning is, that man by nature has a spirit untamed and unsubdued, and that with this, he assumes the appearance of gentleness and tenderness, and attempts to appear as if he was worthy of love and affection. God, seeing

this hollow-heartedness, treats him accordingly. The reference here is to men like Job, and Zophar undoubtedly meant to say that he was hollow-hearted and insincere, and yet that he wished to appear to be a man having a heart, or, having true piety.Would be wise - Various interpretations have been given to this expression. The most simple and obvious seems to be the true one, though I have not seen it noticed by any of the commentators. The word rendered “would be wise” (ילבב yılabeb ) is from לבב labab or לב leb meaning “heart,” and the sense here, as it seems to me, is, “vain, hollow, and insincere, man would wish to seem to have a heart;” that is, would desire to appear sincere, or pious. Destitute of that truly, and false and hollow, he would nevertheless wish to appear different, and would put on the aspect of sincerity and religion. This is the most simple exposition, and this accords with the drift of the passage exactly, and expresses a sentiment which is unquestionably true. Gesenius, however, and some others render it, “but man is hollow and wanteth understanding; yea, man is born like a wild ass‘s colt, signifying the weakness and dullness of the human understanding in comparison with the divine wisdom.” Others render it, “but the foolish man becometh wise when the wild ass‘s colt shall become a man,” that is, never, a most forced and unnatural construction. Dr. Good renders it:Will he then accept the hollow-hearted person?Or shall the wild ass-colt assume the man?Schultens and Dathe translate it:Let then vain man be wise,And the wild ass‘s colt become a man.Though man be born - Though man by nature, or in connection with his birth, is untamed, lawless, rebellious. The wild ass is a striking image of that which is untamed and unsubdued; compare the notes at Job 39:5. Thus, Jeremiah describes it, “a wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure,” Jeremiah 2:24. Thus, it is said of Ishmael Genesis 16:12, “and he will be a wild man,” פרא אדם para' 'adam - a wild ass of a man. So Job 39:5:Who hath sent out the wild ass free?Or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?It is not quite easy for us to understand these allusions, for with us the ass is the proverbial image of stupidity, dullness, obstinacy, and immobility. But it was not so with the ancients. It is mentioned as distinguished for velocity, for wildness,

and for an unsubdued spirit. Thus, Oppian, as quoted by Bochart, Hieroz. Lib. i. c. ix. p. 63, says:Κραιπνον, αελλοποδην, κρατερωνυχον, οξυτατον Θειν. , aellopoden krateronuchon ocutaton thein “Swift, rapid, with strong hoofs, and most fleet in his course.”And Aristotle mentions wild asses as την ταχυτητα διαφεροντες ten tachuteta diapherontes Hist. Lib. vi. 6 c. 36. So Aelian says of them, ωκιστοι δραμειν okistoi dramein fleet in their course. And Xenophon says of them, πολυ του ιππου θαττον ετρεχον polu tou hippou thatton etrechon they run much swifter than a horse. In describing the march of the younger Cyrus through Syria, he says, “The wild ass, being swifter of foot than our horses, would, in gaining ground upon them, stand still and look around; and when their pursuers got nearly up to them, they would start off, and repeat the same trick; so that there remained to the hunters no other method of taking them but by dividing themselves into dispersed parties which succeeded each other in the chase;” compare Bochart, Hieroz. P. I. Lib. iii. c. xvi. pp. 867-879. A similar statement is made by Aelian (Lib. xiv. cap. 10, as quoted by Bochart), “The wild asses of Maurusius ονοι Μανρουσιοι onoi Maurousioi are most fleet in their course, and at the commencement of their course they seem to be borne along by the winds, or as on the wings of a bird.” “In Persia,” says the Editor of the Pictorial Bible, “the wild ass is prized above all other animals as an object of chase, not only from its fleetness, but the delicacy of its flesh, which made it an article of luxury even at the royal tables.”“They are now most abundantly found in the deserts of Tartary, and of the countries between the Tigris and the Indus, more particularly in the central parts of the regions thus defined. We know that they were also anciently found in the regions of Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria, and Arabia Deserta; but from these regions they seem to have been, in the course of ages, almost entirely expelled or extirpated.” Pict. Bib. on Job 39:5. The idea in the passage before us is, that man at his birth has a strong resemblance to a wild and untamed animal; and the passage undoubtedly indicates the early belief of the native proneness of man to wander away from God, and of his possessing by nature an insubmissive spirit.

Verse 13If thou prepare thine heart - Zophar now proceeds to state that if Job even yet would return to God, he might hope for acceptance. Though he had sinned, and though he was now, as he supposed, a hollow-hearted and an insincere man,

yet, if he would repent, he might expect the divine favor. In this he accords with the sentiment of Eliphaz, and he concludes his speech in a manner not a little resembling his; see Job 5:17-27.And stretch out thine hands toward him - In the attitude of supplication. To stretch out or spread forth the hands, is a phrase often used to denote the act of supplication; see 1 Timothy 2:8 , and the notes of Wetstein on that place. Horace, 3Carm. xxiii. 1, Coelo supinas si tuleris manus. Ovid, M. ix. 701, Ad sidera supplex Cressa manus tollens. Trist. i. 10,21, Ipsc gubernator, tollens ad sidera palmas; compare Livy v. 21. Seneca, Ep. 41; Psalm 63:4; Psalm 134:2; Psalm 141:2; Ezra 9:5.

Verse 14If iniquity be in thine hand - If you have in your possession anything that has been unjustly obtained. If you have oppressed the poor and the fatherless, and have what properly belongs to them, let it be restored. This is the obvious duty of one who comes to God to implore his favor; compare Luke 19:8.

Verse 15For then shalt thou lift up thy face without spot - That is, thy face shall be bright, clear, and cheerful. Thus, we speak of a bright and happy countenance. Zophar undoubtedly designs to show what his appearance would be, contrasted with what it then was. Now his countenance was dejected and sad. It was disfigured by tears, and terror, and long continued anguish. But if he would put away iniquity, and return to God, his face would be cheerful again, and he would be a happy man.Yea, thou shalt be steadfast, and shalt not fear - The word rendered “steadfast” (מצק mutsaq ) is from יצק yatsaq to pour, to pour out, and is applied to liquids, or to metals which are fused and poured into a mould, and which then become hard. Hence, it is used in the sense of firm, solid, intrepid. “Gesenius.” Schultens supposes that the reference here is to metallic mirrors, made by casting, and then polished, and that the idea is, that his face would shine like such a mirror. But it may be doubted whether this interpretation is not too refined. The other and more common explanation well suits the sense, and should probably be retained.

Verse 16

And remember it as waters that pass away - As calamity that has completely gone by, or that has rolled on and will return no more. The comparison is beautiful. The water of the river is borne by us, and returns no more. The rough, the swollen, the turbid stream, we remember as it foamed and dashed along, threatening to sweep everything away; but it went swiftly by, and will never come back. So with afflictions. They are soon gone. The most intense pain soon subsides. The days of sorrow pass quickly away. There is an outer limit of suffering, and even ingenuity cannot prolong it far. The man disgraced, and whose life is a burden, will soon die. On the checks of the solitary prisoner doomed to the dungeon for life, a “mortal paleness” will soon settle down, and the comforts of approaching death will soothe the anguish of his sad heart. The rack of torture cheats itself of its own purpose, and the exhausted sufferer is released. “The excess (of grief) makes it soon mortal.” “No sorrow but killed itself much sooner.” Shakespeare. When we look back upon our sorrows, it is like thinking of the stream that was so much swollen, and was so impetuous. Its waters rolled on, and they come not back again; and there is a kind of pleasure in thinking of that time of danger, of that flood that was then so fearful, and that has now swept on to come back no more. So there is a kind of peaceful joy in thinking of the days of sorrow that are now fled forever; in the assurance that those sad times will never, never recur again.

Verse 17And thine age - Thy life. This does not mean old age, but the idea is, that his life would be cheerful and happy.Clearer than the noon-day - Margin, “Arise above the noon-day.” The margin is a literal rendering; but the sense is clear in the text. The idea is, that the remainder of his life would be bright as the sun if he would return to God.Thou shalt shine forth - Or rather, “thou art now in darkness, but thou shalt be as the morning.” The word used here - תעפה ta‛upah is from עוף ‛uph to cover - as with wings, to fly, to cover with darkness. In no instance does it mean to shine, or to be clear and bright; and why our translators attached that idea to it, it is now difficult to conjecture. The Chaldee and Syriac read the word as a noun, and render the passage, “and thy darkness shall be as the aurora.” The Vulgate renders it, “and meridian splendor, as it were, shall arise upon thee at the evening.” The Septuagint, “and thy prayer shall be like the morning star, and life shall rise upon thee from noon-day.” The sense in the Hebrew is plain. He was

then in darkness. Clouds and calamities were round about him, but if he would return to God, he would be permitted to enjoy a bright day of prosperity. Such a day would return to him like the morning after a long and gloomy night.

Verse 18And thou shalt be secure - You will feel confident that your prosperity will be permanent, and you will be free from the distressing anxieties and fears which you now have.Thou shalt dig about thee - The Chaldee renders this, “thou shalt prepare for thyself a sepulchre, and shalt lie down in safety.” The word used here (חפר chaphar ) has two significations. It means,(1) “to dig” - as, e. g. a well, and under this signification to search out, to explore; and,(2.) to be ashamed, to blush, Isaiah 1:29.According to Gesenius, the latter here is the signification. “Now thou art ashamed, then thou shalt dwell in quiet,” Lexicon. So Noyes renders it. Dr. Good translates it, “yea, thou shalt look around;” Rosenmuller, “thou art suffused with shame.” This is, probably, the true sense; and the idea is, that though he was now covered with shame, yet he would lie down in peace and safety if he would return to the Lord.

Verse 19Many shall make suit unto thee - Many shall come in a suppliant manner to ask counsel and advice. The meaning is, that he would be a man of distinction, to whom many would look for counsel. This was evidently an honor highly valued in the East, and one on which Job had formerly pridcd himself; see Job 29:7-13.

Verse 20But the eyes of the wicked shall fail - That is, they shall be wearied out by anxiously looking for relief from their miseries. “Noyes.” Their expectation shall be vain, and they shall find no relief. Perhaps Zophar here means to apply this to Job, and to say to him that with his present views and character, his hope of relief would fail. His only hope of relief was in a change - in turning to God - since it was a settled maxim that the wicked would look for relief in vain. This assumption that he was a wicked man, must have been among the most trying things that Job had to endure. Indeed nothing could he more provoking than to

have others take it for granted as a matter that did not admit of argument, that he was a hypocrite, and that God was dealing with him as an incorrigible sinner.And they shall not escape - Margin, “Flight shall perish from them.” The margin is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The sense is, escape for the wicked is out of the question. They must be arrested and punished.And their hope shall be as the giving up of the ghost - literally, “the breathing out of the life or soul.” Their hope shall leave them as the breath or life does the body. It is like death. The expression does not mean that their hope would always expire at death, but that it would certainly expire as life leaves the body. The meaning is, that whatever hope a wicked man has of future happiness and salvation, must fail. The time must come when it will cease to comfort and support him. The hope of the pious man lives until it is lost in fruition in heaven. It attends him in health; supports him in sickness; is with him at home; accompanies him abroad; cheers him in solitude; is his companion in society; is with him as he goes down into the shades of adversity, and it brightens as he travels along the valley of the shadow of death. It stands as a bright star over his grave - and is lost only in the glories of heaven, as the morning star is lost in the superior brightness of the rising sun. Not so the hypocrite and the sinner. His hope dies - and he leaves the world in despair. Sooner or later the last ray of his delusive hopes shall take its departure from the soul, and leave it to darkness. No matter how bright it may have been; no matter how long he has cherished it; no matter on what it is founded - whether on his morals, his prayers, his accomplishments, his learning; if it be not based on true conversion, and the promised mercy of God through a Redeemer, it must; soon cease to shine, and will leave the soul to the gloom of black despair.

12 Chapter 12 Verse 2No doubt but ye are the people - That is, the only wise people. You have engrossed all the wisdom of the world, and all else are to be regarded as fools. This is evidently the language of severe sarcasm; and it shows a spirit fretted and chafed by their reproaches. Job felt contempt for their reasoning. and meant to intimate that their maxims, on which they placed so much reliance, were common-place, and such as every one was familar with.And wisdom shall die with you - This is ironical, but it is language such as is common perhaps every where. “The people of the East,” says Roberts, “take

great pleasure in irony, and some of their satirical sayings are very cutting. When a sage intimates that he has superior wisdom or when he is disposed to rally another for his meagrc attainments, he says, ‹Yes, yes, you are the man! ‹ ‹Your wisdom is like the sea.‘ ‹When you die, whither will wisdom go?‘” In a serious sense, language like this is used by the Classical writers to describe the death of eminently great or good men. They speak of wisdom, bravery, piety, or music, as dying with them. Thus, Moschus, Idyll. iii. 12.Οττι βιων τεθνηκεν ο βωκολος, εττι συν αυτωΚαι το μελος τεθνακε, και ωλετο Δωρις αειδος. Hotti bion tethneken ho bokolos esti sun auto Kai to melos tethnake kai oleto Doris aeidos “Bion the swain is dead, and with him songHas died, and the Doric muse has perished.”Expressions like these are common. Thus, in the “Pleasures of Hope” it is said:And Freedom shrieked when Kosciusko fell.

Verse 3But I have understanding as well as you - Margin, as in the Hebrew “an heart.” The word “heart” in the Scriptures is often used to denote the understanding or mind. It seems to have been regarded as the source of that which was called life or soul. Indeed, I do not recollect a single instance in the Scriptures in which the word “head” is used, as with us, as the seat of the intellect, or where the distinction is adverted to that is so common with us, between the head and the heart. With us, the heart is the seat of the affections and emotions; with the Hebrews, it was the seat of understanding, and the σπλαγχνα splangchna - the viscera, the bowels, were the seat of the emotions; see the notes at Isaiah 16:11. A more correct physiology has taught us that the brain is the organ of the intellect, and we now speak of “the heart” as the seat of the affections. The Romans regarded the “breast” as the seat of the soul. Thus, Virgil, speaking of the death of Lucagus by the hand of Aeneas, says:Tum latebras animae pectus mucrone recluditAeneid x. 601.I am not inferior to you - Margin, “fall not lower than.” This is the literal translation: “I do not fall beneath you.” Job claims to be equal to them in the power of quoting the sayings. of the ancients; and in order to show this, he proceeds to adduce a number of proverbial sayings, occupying the remainder of

this chapter, to show that he was familiar with that mode of reasoning, and that in this respect he was fully their equal. This may be regarded as a trial of skill, and was quite common in the East. Wisdom consisted in storing up a large amount of proverbs and maxims, and in applying them readily and pertinently on all public occasions; and in this controversy, Job was by no means disposed to yield to them.Yea, who knoweth not such things as these? - Margin, “With whom” are “not such as these?” The meaning is, that instead of being original, the sentiments which they advanced were the most commonplace imaginable. Job not only said that he knew them, but that it would be strange if every body did not know them.

Verse 4I am as one mocked of his neighbour - There has been considerable variety in the interpretation of this verse. The general sense is, that Job felt himself to be a mere laughing-stock for his neighbors. They treated him as if he were not worth regarding. They had no sympathy for him in his sorrows, and they showed no respect for his opinions. Dr. Good understands this and the following verses as a part of the controversy in which Job proposes to show his skill in debate, and to adduce proverbs after the manner of his friends. But it is more probably an allusion to himself, and is designed to state that he felt that he was not treated with the respect which was due to him. Much difficulty has been felt in understanding the connection. Reiske contends that Job 12:2 has no connection with Job 12:3, and that Job 12:11-12, should be interposed between them. The connection seems to me to be this: Job complains that he was not treated with due deference. They had showed no respect for his understanding and rank. They had urged the most common-place topics; advanced stale and trite apothegms, as if he had never heard them; dwelt on maxims familiar even to the meanest persons; and had treated him in this manner as if he were a mere child in knowledge. Thus, to be approached with vague common-places, and with remarks such as would be used in addressing children, he regarded as insult and mockery.Who calleth upon God, and he answereth him - This phrase has given occasion to great variety in the interpretation. Umbreit renders it, “I, who once called upon God, and he answered me;” that is, I, who once was a happy man, and blessed of God. Schultens renders it, “I, who call upon God,” that is, for trial, “and am ready to answer him.‘ Rosenmuller supposes that Job has reference to

the assurances of his friends, that if he would call upon God, he would answer him, and that in view of that suggestion he exclaims, “Shall a man who is a laughing-stock to his neighbor call upon God, and will he answer him!‘ The probable meaning is, that he had been a man who had had constant communion with God. He had been a favorite of the Almighty, for he had lent a listening ear to his supplications. It was now a thing of which he might reasonably complain, that a man who had enjoyed such manifest tokens of the divine favor, was treated with reproach and scorn.

Verse 5He that is ready to slip with his feet - The man whose feet waver or totter; that is, the man in adversity; see Proverbs 25:19. A man in prosperity is represented as standing firm; one in adversity as wavering, or falling; see Psalm 73:2.But as for me, my feet were almost gone;My steps had well nigh slipped.There is much difficulty in this passage, and it has by no means been removed by the labor of critics. The reader may consult Rosenmuller, Good, and Schultens, on the verse, for a more full attempt to illustrate its meaning. Dr. Good, after Reiske and Parkhurst, has offered an explanation by rendering the whole passage thus:The just, the perfect man is a laughing-stock to the proud,A derision amidst the sunshine of the prosperous,While ready to slip with his foot.It does not appear to me, however, that this translation can be fairly educed from the Hebrew text, and I am disposed to acquiesce in the more common and obvious interpretation. According to that, the idea is, that a man in adversity, when failing from a high condition of honor, is regarded as an almost extinguished lamp, that is now held in contempt, and is cast away. When the torch was blazing, it was regarded as of value; when nearly extinguished, it would be regarded as worthless, and would be cast away. So when a man was in prosperity, he would be looked up to as a guide and example. In adversity, his counsels would be rejected, and he would be looked upon with contempt. Nothing can be more certain or more common than the fact here adverted to. The rich and the great are looked up to with respect and veneration. Their words and actions have an influence which those of no other men have. When they begin to fall, others are willing to hasten their fall. Long cherished but secret envy

begins to show itself; those who wish to rise rejoice in their ruin, and they are looked upon with contempt in proportion to their former honor, rank, and power. They are regarded as an extinguished torch - of no value, and are cast away.In the thought - In the mind, or the view.Of him that is at ease - In a state of comfort and prosperity. He finds no sympathy from them. Job doubtless meant to apply this to his friends. They were then at ease, and were prosperous. Not suffering pain, and not overwhelmed with poverty, they now looked with the utmost composure on him - as they would on a torch which was burned out, and which there would be no hope of rekindling.

Verse 6The tabernacles of robbers prosper - The tents or dwellings of robbers are safe and secure. This is Job‘s original proposition, to which he all along adheres. It is, that God does not deal with people in this life according to their character; and in support of this he now appeals to the fact that the tents or dwellings of robbers are safe. Arabia would furnish many illustrations of this, which could not be unknown to the friends of Job. The Arabs dwelt in tents, and they were then, as now, wandering, predatory tribes. They lived, to a great extent, by plunder, and doubtless Job could appeal to the observation of his friends for the proof of this. He affirms that so far from dealing with people according to their character, God often seemed to protect the public robber, and the blasphemer of his name.Prosper - They are secure, tranquil, at rest - for so the Hebrew word means. They are not disturbed and broken in upon.And they that provoke God - Or rather, “the tents are secure to those who provoke God.” Dr. Good renders it, “and are fortresses to those who provoke God;” but the true idea is, that the tents of those who provoke God by their conduct are safe. God does not seem to notice them, or to come out in judgment against them.Into whose hand God bringeth abundantly - Dr. Noyes renders this, “who carry their God in their hand;” but with much less accuracy, as it seems to me, than commonly characterizes his version. Eichhorn renders it in a sense somewhat similar:Die ihre Faust fur ihre Gottheit achten - “Who regard their fist as their God.”And so Stuhlman renders it:

Und wem die Faust fur Gottheit gilt - “And to whom the fist avails for their God;”That is, says he, Job means that this is the course of the world. Dr. Good renders it, “of him who hath created all these things with his hand” - still less accurately. In order to this, he is obliged to suppose an error in the text, but without the slightest authority. Jerome renders it as in our version. The Septuagint, “who provoke the Lord as if there would be no trial to them - ετασις αυτων etasis auton - here-after;” which certainly makes sense, but it was never obtained from the Hebrew. Rosenmuller renders it, “who have their own hand, that is, power for God;” a description, says he, of a wicked and violent man who thinks it right for him to do as he pleases. It seems to me, however, that the common interpretation, which is the most simple, is most in accordance with the Hebrew, and with the drift of the passage. According to this it means, that there is security to the man who lives to provoke that God who is constantly bringing to him in abundance the tokens of kindness. This is the fact on which Job is insisting - that God does not treat people in this world according to their real character, but that the wicked are prospered and the righteous are afflicted.

Verse 7But ask now the beasts - Rosenmuller supposes that this appeal to the inferior creation should be regarded as connected with Job 12:3, and that the intermediate verses are parenthetical. Zophar had spoken with considerable parade of the wisdom of God. He had said (Job 11:7 ff) that the knowledge of God was higher than the heavens, and had professed Job 12:6 to have himself exalted views of the Most High. In reply to this, Job says that the views which Zophar had expressed, were the most commonplace imaginable. He need not pretend to be acquainted with the more exalted works of God, or appeal to them as if his knowledge corresponded with them. Even the lower creation - the brutes - the earth - the fishes - could teach him knowledge which he had not now. Even from their nature, properties, and modes of life, higher views might he obtained than Zophar had. Others suppose, that the meaning is, that in the distribution of happiness, God is so far from observing moral relations, that even among the lower animals, the rapacious and the violent are prospered, and the gentle and the innocent are the victims.Lions, wolves, and panthers are prospered - the lamb, the kid, the gazelle, are the victims. Either of these views may suit the connection, though the latter

seems to me to be the more probable interpretation. The object of Job is to show that rewards and punishments are not distributed according to character. This was so plain in his view as scarcely to admit of argument. It was seen all over the world not only among people, but even in the brute creation. Every where the strong prey upon the weak; the fierce upon the tame; the violent upon the timid. Yet God does not come forth to destroy the lion and the hyaena, or to deliver the lamb and the gazelle from their grasp. Like robbers Job 12:6, - lions, panthers, and wolves prowl upon the earth; and the eagle and the vulture from the air pounce upon the defenseless, and the great robbers of the deep prey upon the feeble, and still are prospered. What a striking illustration of the course of events among people, and of the relative condition of the righteous and the wicked. Nothing could be more pertinent to the design of Job than this appeal, and nothing was more in accordance with the whole structure of the argument in the poem, where wisdom is seen mainly to consist in the result of careful observation.And they shall teach thee - Shall teach thee that God does not treat all according to their character. He does not give security to the gentle, the tame, and the innocent, and punish the ferocious, the blood-thirsty, and the cruel.And the fowls - They shall give thee information of the point under discussion. Those that prey upon others - as the eagle and the vulture - are not exposed at once to the divine displeasure, and the tender and harmless are not protected. The general principle is illustrated in them, that the dealings of God are not always in exact accordance with character.

Verse 8Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee - Perhaps this appeal to the earth may mean, as Stuhlman supposes, that the same thing is shown in the productions of the earth, as in the case of fierce animals. Noxious weeds and useless plants are more thrifty than the plants which are useful and the growth of poisonous or annoying things on the earth illustrates the same thing as the dealings of God with people - that his dealings are not in accordance with the real nature of objects.And the fishes of the sea - The same thing is manifested in the sea, where the mighty prey upon the feeble, and the fierce and the ferocious overcome the defenseless. The sentiment is that it is a great principle which pervades all things that the ferocious the strong, the wicked, are often prospered, while the weak,

the defenseless, the innocent, the pious, are subject to calamities, and that God does not apportion his dealings to the exact character of his creatures. Undoubtedly Job was right in this. and this general principle might be seen then as now, to pervade the world.

Verse 9Who knoweth not in all these - Who cannot see in all these the proofs of the same divine and sovereign agency? Who cannot see the hand of the same God and the same great principles of administration? The meaning of Job is, that the position which he defends is so plain, that it may be learned from the very earth and the lowest orders of animals which God has made.That the hand of the Lord hath wrought this - In this place the original word is yehovah On the meaning of יהוה the word see the notes at Isaiah 1:2. The Chaldee also renders it here יה yahh It is remarkable that this is the only place where the name yahweh occurs in poetical parts of the book of Job, in the printed editions. In Job 28:28, yahweh is found in some manuscripts, though the word “Adonai” is in the printed copies. Eichhorn, Einleit. section 644, Note. In Job 12:9, the word yahweh, though found in the printed editions, is missing in nine ancient manuscripts. Dr. John P. Wilson on the “Hope of Immortality,” p. 57. The word yahweh constantly occurs in the historical parts of the book. On the argument derived from this, in regard to the antiquity of the Book of Job, see the introduction, Section 4.

Verse 10In whose hand is the soul of every living thing - Margin, “Life.” The margin is the more correct rendering. The idea is, that all are under the control of God. He gives life, and health, and happiness when he pleases, and when he chooses he takes them away. His sovereignty is manifested, says Job, in the inferior creation, or among the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of heaven.And the breath of all mankind - Margin, “Flesh of man.” The margin is in accordance with the Hebrew. The meaning is, that man is subjected to the same laws as the rest of the creation. God is a sovereign, and the same great principles of administration may be seen in all his works.

Verse 11

Doth not the ear try words? - The literal meaning of this, which is evidently a proverbial expression, is plain; but about its bearing here there is more difficulty. The literal sense is, that it is the office of the ear to mark the distinction of sounds, and to convey the sense to the soul. But in regard to the exact bearing of this proverb on the case in hand, commentators have not been agreed. Probably the sense is, that there ought to be a diligent attention to the signification of words, and to the meaning of a speaker, as one carefully tastes his food; and Job, perhaps, may be disposed to complain that his friends had not given that attention which they ought to have done to the true design and signification of his remarks. Or it may mean that man is endowed with the faculty of attending to the nature and qualities of objects, and that he ought to exercise that faculty in judging of the lessons which are taught respecting God or his works.And the mouth - Margin, as in the Hebrew חך chek - “palate.” The word means not merely the palate, but the lower part of the mouth (Gesenius), and is especially used to designate the organ or the seat of taste; Psalm 119:103; Job 6:30.His meat - Its food - the word “meat” being used in Old English to denote all kinds of food. The sense is, man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing what is wholesome from what is unwholesome, and he should, in like manner, exercise the faculty which God has given him of distinguishing the true from the false on moral subjects. He should not suppose that all that had been said, or that could be said, must necessarily be true. He should not suppose that merely to string together proverbs, and to utter common-place suggestions, was a mark of true wisdom. He should separate the valuable from the worthless, the true from the false, and the wholesome from the injurious. Job complains that his friends had not done this. They had shown no power of discrimination or selection. They had uttered common place apothegms, and they gathered adages of former times, without any discrimination, and had urged them in their arguments against him, whether pertinent or not. It was by this kind of irrelevant and miscellaneous remark that he felt that he had been mocked by his friends, Job 12:4.

Verse 12With the ancient is wisdom - With the aged. The word yashıysh used ישיש here, means an old man, one gray-headed. It is used chiefly in poetry, and is commonly employed in the sense of one who is decrepit by age. It is rendered

“very aged” in Job 15:10; “him that stooped for age.” 2 Chronicles 36:17 ; “very old,” Job 32:6; and “the aged,” Job 29:8 The Septuagint renders it, Εν πολλω χρονω En pollo chrono “in much time.” The sense is, that wisdom might be expected to be found with the man who had had a long opportunity to observe the course of events; who had conversed with a former generation, and who had had time for personal reflection. This was in accordance with the ancient Oriental views, where knowledge was imparted mainly by tradition, and where wisdom depended much on the opportunity of personal observation; compare Job 32:7.

Verse 13With him is wisdom - Margin, correctly, “God.” However much wisdom there may seem to be with aged men, yes the true wisdom - that which was supreme and worthy of the name - was to be found in God alone. The object of Job was to lead the thoughts up to God, and to bring his friends to a contemplation of the wisdom which he manifests in his works. Accordingly he goes on in the remainder of this chapter to state some of the illustrations of wisdom and power which God had exhibited, and particularly to show that he was a sovereign, and did his pleasure every where. He made all things; he sustains all things; he reverses the condition of people at his pleasure; he sets up whom he pleases, and when he chooses he casts them down. His works are contrary in many respects to what we should anticipate; and the sense of all is, that God was a holy and a righteous sovereign, and that such were the reverses under his administration that we could not argue that he treated all according to their character on earth.

Verse 14Behold, he breaketh down - None can repair what he pulls down. Cities and towns he can devote to ruin by fire, or earthquake, or the pestilence, and so completely destroy them that they can never be rebuilt. We may now refer to such illustrations as Sodom, Babylon, Petra, Tyre, Herculaneum, and Pompeii, as full proof of what is here affirmed.He shutteth up a man - He can shut up a man in such difficulties and straits that he cannot extricate himself; see Job 11:10. The Chaldee renders this, “he shuts up a man in the grave (בקבורתא ) and it cannot be opened.” But the more correct idea is, that God has complete control over a man, and that he can so hedge up his way that he cannot help himself.

Verse 15He withholdeth the waters - From the clouds and springs. He has control over the rains and the fountains; and when these are withheld, rivers and lakes become dry. The Syriac renders this, - “if he rebuke the waters,” supposing that there might perhaps be an allusion to the drying up of the Red Sea, or the formation of a passage for the Israelites. But it is remarkable that in the argument here there is no allusion to any historical fact, not to the flood, or to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or to the passage through the Red Sea, though these occurrences would have furnished so appropriate illustrations of the points under discussion. Is it to be inferred that Job had never heard of any of those events? Or may it have been that the lessons which they were adapted to teach had been actually embodied in the proverbs which he was using, and furnished well-known illustrations or the basis of such apothegms?He sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth - Such inundations may have occurred in the swollen torrents of Arabia, and indeed are so common everywhere as to furnish a striking illustration of the power and sovereign agency of God.

Verse 16The deceived and the deceiver are his - This is designed to teach that all classes of people are under his control. All are dependent on him, and all are subject to him. He has power to keep them, and he can destroy them when he pleases. Dr. Good supposes that Job refers here to himself and his friends who had beguiled him into expressions of impatience and complaint. But it is more probably a general declaration that all classes of people were under the control of God.

Verse 17He leadeth counsellors away spoiled - Plundered or captive. That is, the counsels of wise and great men do not avail against God. Statesmen who promised themselves victory as the result of their plans he disappoints, and leads away into captivity. The object of this is to show that God is superior over all, and also that people are not dealt with in exact accordance with their character and rank. God is a sovereign, and he shows his sovereignty when defeating the

counsels and purposes of the wisest of men, and overturning the plans of the mighty.And maketh the judges fools - He leaves them to distracted and foolish plans. He leaves them to the adoption of measures which result in their own ruin. He is a sovereign, having control over the minds of the great, and power to defeat all their counsels, and to render them infatuated. Nothing can be clearer than this. Nothing has been more frequently illustrated in the history of nations. In accordance with this belief is the well-known expression:Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat.“Whom God purposes to destroy, he first infatuates.”

Verse 18He looseth the bond of kings - The bond of kings (מוסר musar ) here means that by which they bind others. Their power over others he loosens or takes away.And girdeth their loins with a girdle - That is, he girds them with a rope or cord, and leads them away as prisoners. The whole series of remarks here refers to the reverses and changes in the conditions of life. The meaning here is, that the bonds of authority which they imposed on others are unbound, and that their own loins are bound with a girdle, not a girdle of royal dignity and ornament, but such a one as they are bound with who are servants, or who travel. “Pict. Bib.”

Verse 19He leadeth princes away spoiled - That is, plundered. The word here rendered “princes” כהנים kohenıym means properly priests, and it is usually so rendered in the Scriptures. The ancient Hebrew interpreters suppose that the word sometimes also means prince. The Chaldee paraphrasist has not unfrequently so rendered it, using the word רבא to express it; Genesis 41:45; Psalm 110:4. In this place, the Vulgate renders it, “sacerdotes;” and the Septuagint, ιερεις hiereis “priests.” So Luther renders it, “Priester.” So Castellio. It can be applied to princes or statesmen only because priests were frequently engaged in performing the functions of civil officers, and were in fact to a certain extent officers of the government. But it seems to me that it is to be taken in its usual signification, and that it means that even the ministers of religion were at the control of God, and were subject to the same reverses as other people of distinction and power.

And overthroweth - The word used here ( salaph סלף) has the notion of slipping, or gliding. So in Arabic, the word means to slip by, and to besmear; see Proverbs 13:6: “Wickedness overthroweth tesalaph causes תסלף to slip) the sinner;” compare Proverbs 21:12; Proverbs 22:12. Here it means to overthrow, to prostrate. The most mighty chieftains cannot stand firm before him, but they glide away and fall.

Verse 20He removeth away the speech of the trusty - Margin, “lip of the faithful.” “He takes away the lip,” that is, he takes away the power of giving safe counsel or good advice. The “trusty” or “faithful” here refer to those of age and experience, and on whose counsel men are accustomed to rely. The meaning here is, that their most sagacious anticipations are disappointed, their wisest schemes are foiled. They fail-in their calculations of the coarse of events, and the arrangements of Providence are such that they could not anticipate what was to occur.The understanding of the aged - To whom the young were accustomed to look up with deference and respect. The meaning here is, that they who were accustomed to give wise and sound advice, if left by God, give vain and foolish counsels.

Verse 21He poureth contempt upon princes - He has power to hurl them from their thrones, and to overwhelm them with disgrace.And weakeneth the strength of the mighty - Margin, as in Hebrew “looseth the girdle of the strong.” The Orientals wore loose flowing robes, which were secured by a girdle around the loins. When they labored, ran, or traveled, their robes were girded up. But this is common everywhere. Wrestlers, leapers, and runners, put a girdle around them, and are able thus to accomplish much more than they otherwise could. To loosen that, is to weaken them. So Job says that God had power to loosen the strength of the mighty. He here seems to labor for expressions, and varies the form of the image in every way to show the absolute control which God has over people, and the fact that his power is seen in the reverses of mankind. Lucretius has a passage strongly resembling this in the general sentiment:Usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quaedam

Obterit; et pulchros fasces, saevasque secures,Proculcare, atque ludibrio sibi habere, videtur.Lib. v. 1232.So from his awful shades, some Power unseenO‘erthrows all human greatness! Treads to dustRods, ensigns, crowns - the proudest pomps of state;And laughs at all the mockery of mad!Good.

Verse 22He discovereth deep thirsts out of darkness - That is, God discloses truths which are wholly beyond the power of man to discover - truths that seem to be hidden in profound night. This may refer either to the revelation which God was believed to have furnished, or to his power of bringing out the most secret thoughts and purposes, or to his power of predicting future events by bringing them out of darkness to the clear light of day, or to his power of detecting plots, intrigues, and conspiracies.And bringeth out to light the shadow of death - On the meaning of the word rendered “shadow of death,” see the notes at Job 3:5. It here denotes whatever is dark or obscure. It is rather a favorite expression with the author of this poem (see Job 10:22; Job 16:16; Job 24:17; Job 34:22; Job 38:17), though it occurs elsewhere in the Scriptures. The deepest darkness, the obscurest night, are represented by it; and the idea is, that even from the most dark and impenetrable regions God could bring out light and truth. All is naked and open to the mind of God.

Verse 23He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them - He has entire control over them. The sources of prosperity are in his hand, and at his pleasure he can visit them with famine, pestilence, or war, and diminish their numbers and arrest their prosperity. Dr. Good renders this very improperly, “He letteth the nations grow licentious;” but the word .saga' never has this sense שגא It means, to make great; to multiply; to increase.And straiteneth them again - Margin, “leadeth in.” So the word nachah נחה means. The idea is, that he increases a nation so that it spreads abroad beyond

its usual limits, and then at his pleasure leads them back again, or confines them within the limits from where they had emigrated.

Verse 24He taketh away the heart - The word heart here evidently means mind, intelligence, wisdom; see the notes at Job 12:3.Of the chief of the people - Hebrew “Heads of the people;” that is, of the rulers of the earth. The meaning is, that he leaves them to infatuated and distracted counsels. By withdrawing from them, he has power to frustrate their plans, and to leave them to an entire lack of wisdom; see the notes at Job 12:17.And causeth them to wander in a wilderness - They are like persons in a vast waste of pathless sands without a waymark, a guide, or a path. The perplexity and confusion of the great ones of the earth could not be more strikingly represented than by the condition of such a lost traveler.

Verse 25They grope in the dark - They are like persons who attempt to feel their way along in the dark; compare the notes at Isaiah 59:10.And he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man - Margin, “wander.” Their unstable and perplexed counsels are like the reelings of a drunken man; see Isaiah 19:14, note; Isaiah 24:20, note. This closes the chapter, and with it the controversy in regard to the ability to adduce pertinent and striking proverbial expressions; see the notes at Job 12:3. Job had showed them that he was as familiar with proverbs respecting God as they were, and that he entertained as exalted ideas of the control and government of the Most High as they did. It may be added, that these are sublime and beautiful expressions respecting God. They surpass all that can be found in the writings of the pagan; and they show that somehow in the earliest ages there prevailed views of God which the human mind for ages afterward, and in the most favorable circumstances, was not capable of originating. These proverbial sayings were doubtless fragments of revealed truth, which had come down by tradition, and which were thus embodied in a form convenient to be transmitted from age to age.

13 Chapter 13 Verse 1

Lo, mine eye hath seen all this - I have seen illustrations of all that I have said, or that you have said about the methods of divine providence.

Verse 2What ye know … - See the note at Job 12:3.

Verse 3Surely I would speak to the Almighty - I would desire to carry my cause directly up to God, and spread out my reasons before him. This Job often professed to desire; see Job 9:34-35. He felt that God would appreciate the arguments which he would urge, and would do justice to them. His friends he felt were censorious and severe. They neither did justice to his feelings, nor to his motives. They perverted his words and arguments; and instead of consoling him, they only aggravated his trials, and caused him to sink into deeper sorrows. But he felt if he could carry his cause to God, he would do ample justice to him and his cause. The views which he entertained of his friends he proceeds to state at considerable length, and without much reserve, in the following verses.

Verse 4But ye are forgers of lies - The word lies here seems to be used in a large sense, to denote sophisms, false accusations, errors. They maintained false positions; they did not see the exact truth in respect to the divine dealings, and to the character of Job. They maintained strenuously that Job was a hypocrite, and that God was punishing him for his sins. They maintained that God deals with people in exact accordance with their charactor in this world, all of which Job regarded as false doctrine, and asserted that they defended it with sophistical arguments invented for the purpose, and thus they could be spoken of as “forgers of lies.”Physicians of no value - The meaning is, that they had come to give him consolation, but nothing that they had said had imparted comfort. They were like physicians sent for to visit the sick, who could do nothing when they came; compare Job 16:2.

Verse 5Oh that ye would altogether hold your peace! - You would show your wisdom by silence. Since you can say nothing that is adapted to give comfort, or to

explain the true state of the case, it would be wise to say nothing; compare Proverbs 17:28: “Even a fool when he holdeth his peace is counted wise.”

Verse 7Will ye speak wickedly for God? - That is, will you maintain unjust principles with a view to honor or to vindicate God? Job refers doubtless to the positions which they had defended in regard to the divine administration - principles which he regarded as unjust, though they had employed them professedly in vindicating God. The sense is, that unjust principles ought not to be advanced to vindicate God. The great cause of truth and justice should always be maintained, and even in attempting to vindicate the divine administration, we ought to make use of no arguments which are not based on that which is right and true. Job means to reproach his friends with having, in their professed vindication of God, advanced sentiments which were at war with truth and justice, and which were full of fallacy and sophistry. And is this never done now? Are sophistical arguments never employed in attempting to vindicate the divine government? Do we never state principles in regard to him which we should esteem to be unjust and dishonorable if applied to man? Do not good people sometimes feel that that government must be defended at all events; and when they can see no reason for the divine dealings, do they not make attempts at vindicating them, which are merely designed to throw dust in the eyes of an opponent, and which are known to be sophistical in their nature? It is wrong to employ a sophistical argument on any subject; and in reasoning on the divine character and dealings, when we come, as we often do, to points which we cannot understand, it is best to confess it. God asks no weak or sophistical argument in his defense; still less can he be pleased with an argument, though in defense of his government, which is based on unjust principles.And talk deceitfully for him - Use fallacies and sophisms in attempting to vindicate him. Everything in speaking of God, should be true, pure, and sound. Every argument should be free from any appearance of sophism, and should be such as will bear the test of the most thorough examination. No honor is done to God by sophistical arguments, nor can he be pleased when such arguments are employed even to vindicate and honor his character.

Verse 8

Will ye accept his person? - That is, will you be partial to him? The language is such as is used in relation to courts of justice, where a judge shows favor to one of the parties on account of birth, rank, wealth, or personal friendship. The idea here is, “will you, from partiality to God, maintain unjust principles, and defend positions which are really untenable?” There was a controversy between Job and God. Job maintained that he was punished too severely; that the divine dealings were unequal and disproportioned to his offences. His friends, he alleges, have not done justice to the arguments which he had urged, but had taken sides with God against him, no matter what he urged or what he said. So little disposed were they to do justice to him and to listen to his vindication, that no matter what he said, they set it all down to impatience, rebellion, and insubmission.They assumed that he was wrong, and that God was wholly right in all flyings. Of this position that God was right, no one could reasonably complain, and in his sober reflections Job himself would not be disposed to object to it; but his complaint is, that though the considerations which he urged were of the greatest weight, they would not allow their force, simply because they were determined to vindicate God. Their position was, that God dealt with people strictly according to their character; and that no matter what they suffered, their sufferings were the exact measure of their ill desert. Against this position, they would hear nothing that Job could say; and they maintained it by every kind of argument which was at their command - whether sound or unsound, sophistical or solid. Job says that this was showing partiality for God, and he felt that he had a right to complain. We need never show “partiality” even for God. He can be vindicated by just and equal arguments; and we need never injure others while we vindicate him. Our arguments for him should indeed be reverent, and we should desire to vindicate his character and government; but the considerations which we urge need not be those of mere partiality and favor.Will ye contend for God? - Language taken from a court of justice, and referring to an argument in favor of a party or cause. Job asks whether they would undertake to maintain the cause of God, and he may mean to intimate that they were wholly disqualified for such an undertaking. He not only reproves them for a lack of candor and impartiality, as in the previous expressions, but he means to say that they were unfitted in all respects to be the advocates of God. They did not understand the principles of his administration. Their views were narrow, their information limited, and their arguments either common-place or unsound. According to this interpretation, the emphasis will be on the word “ye” - “will YE

contend for God?” The whole verse may mean, “God is not to be defended by mere partiality, or favor. Solid arguments only should be employed in his cause. Such you have not used, and you have shown yourselves to be entirely unfitted for this great argument.”The practical inference which we should draw from this is, that our arguments in defense of the divine administration, should be solid and sound. They should not be mere declamation, or mere assertion. They should be such as will become the great theme, and such as will stand the test of any proper trial that can be applied to reasoning. There are arguments which will “vindicate all God‘s ways to men;” and to search them out should be one of the great employments of our lives. If ministers of the gospel would always abide by these principles, they would often do much more than they do now to commend religion to the sober views of mankind. No people are under greater temptations to use weak or unsound arguments than they are. They feel it to be their duty at all hazards to defend the divine administration. They are in circumstances where their arguments will not be subjected to the searching process which an argument at the bar will be, where a keen and interested opponent is on the alert, and will certainly sift every argument which is urged.Either by inability to explain the difficulties of the divine government, or by indolence in searching out arguments, or by presuming on the ignorance and dullness of their hearers, or by a pride which will not allow them to confess their ignorance on any subject, they are in danger of attempting to hide a difficulty which they cannot explain, or of using arguments and resorting to reasoning, which would be regarded as unsound or worthless any where else. A minister should always remember that sound reasoning is as necessary in religion as in other things, and that there are always some people who can detect a fallacy or see through sophistry. With what diligent study then should the ministers of the gospel prepare for their work! How careful should they be, as the advocates of God and his cause in a world opposed to him, to find out solid arguments, to meet with candor every objection, and to convince people by sound reasoning, that God is right! Their work is to convince, not to denounce; and if there is any office of unspeakable responsibility on earth, it is that of undertaking to be the advocates of God.

Verse 9

Is it good that he should search you out? - Would it be well for you if he should go into an investigation of your character, and of the arguments which you adduce? The idea is, that if God should make such an investigation, the result would be highly unfavorable to them. Perhaps Job means to intimate that, if they were subjected to the kind of trial that he had been, it would be seen that they could not bear it. “Or as one man mocketh another.” The idea here is, “it is possible to delude or deceive man, but God cannot be deceived. You may conceal your thoughts and motives from man, but you cannot from God. You may use arguments that may impose upon man - you may employ fallacies and sophisms which he cannot detect, but every such effort is vain with God;” compare Galatians 6:7.

Verse 10He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons - If you show partiality, you will incur his disapprobation. This seems to have much era proverbial cast, and to mean that under no possible circumstances was it right to show partiality. No matter for whom it may be done, it will be displeasing to God. Even if it be in favor of the righteous, the widow, the fatherless, or of himself, if there is not a disposition to judge according to truth and evidence, God will frown upon you. No matter who the parties might be; no matter what their rank; no matter what friendship there might be for one or the other of them, it was never to be assumed that one was right and the other wrong without evidence. The exact truth was to be sought after, and the judgement made up accordingly. Even when God was one of the parties, the same course was to be pursued. His character was capable of being successfully vindicated, and he would not be pleased to have his cause defended or decided by partiality, or by mere favor. Hence, he encourages people to bring forth their strong reasons, and to adduce all that can be said against his government and laws. See the notes at Isaiah 41:1-21.

Verse 11Shall not his excellency - His exaltation שאת se'eth from נשא nasa' to exalt, to lift up), or his majesty, Genesis 49:3.Make you afraid - Fill you with awe and reverence. Shall it not restrain you from fallacy, from sophisms, and from all presumptuous and unfounded reasoning? The sense here is, that a sense of the greatness and majesty of God should fill the mind with solemnity and reverence, and make us serious and sincere; should

repress all declamation and mere assertion, and should lead us to adduce only those considerations which will bear the test of the final trial. The general proposition, however, is not less clear, that a sense of the majesty and glory of God should at all times fill the mind with solemn awe, and produce the deepest veneration. See Jeremiah 5:22; Jeremiah 10:7-10; Genesis 28:17.And his dread - The fear of him. You should so stand in awe of him as not to advance any sentiments which he will not approve, or which will not bear the test of examination. Rosenmuller, however, and after him Noyes, supposes that this is not so much a declaration of what ought to be, implying that the fear of God ought to produce veneration, as a declaration of what actually occurred - implying that they were actually influenced by this slavish fear in what they said. According to this it means that they were actuated only by a dread of what God would do to them that led them to condemn. Job without proof, and not by a regard to truth. But the common interpretation seems to me most in accordance with the meaning of the passage.

Verse 12Your remembrances are like unto ashes - There has been a considerable variety in the interpretation of this verse. The meaning in our common version is certainly not very clear. The Vulgate renders it, Memoria vestra comparabitur cineri. The Septuagint, Αποβησεται δε υμων το γαυριαμα Ισα σποδα Apobesetai de humon to gauriama isa spodo - “your boasting shall pass away like ashes.” Dr. Good renders it, “Dust are your stored-up sayings.” Noyes, “Your maxims are words of dust.” The word rendered “remembrances” זכרון zıkron means properly “remembrance, memory,” Joshua 4:7; Ezekiel 12:14; then a “memento,” or “record;” then a “memorable saying, a maxim.” This is probably the meaning here; and the reference is to the apothegms or proverbs which they had so profusely uttered, and which they regarded as so profound and worthy of attention, but which Job was disposed to regard as most common-place, and to treat with contempt.Are like unto ashes - That is, they are valueless. See the notes at Isaiah 44:20. Their maxims had about the same relation to true wisdom which ashes have to substantial and nutritious food. The Hebrew here ( משלי אפר mashaly 'epher ) is rather, “are parables of ashes;” - the word mashal meaning משל similitude, parable, proverb. This interpretation gives more force and beauty to the passage.

Your bodies - - ,gabeykem Vulgate, “cervices.” Septuagint גביכם το δε σωμα πηλινον to de soma pelinon - but the body is clay. The Hebrew word gab גב means something gibbous (from where the word “gibbous” is derived), convex, arched; hence, the “back” of animals or human beings, Ezekiel 10:12; the boss of a shield or buckler - the “gibbous,” or exterior convex part - Job 15:26; and then, according to Gesenius, an entrenchment, a fortress, a strong-hold. According to this interpretation, the passage here means, that the arguments behind which they entrenched themselves were like clay. They could not resist an attack made upon them, but would be easily thrown down, like mud walls. Grotius renders it, “Your towers (of defense) are tumult of clay.” Rosenmuller remarks on the verse that the ancients were accustomed to inscribe sentences of valuable historical facts on pillars. If these were engraved on stone, they would be permanent; if on pillars covered with clay, they would soon be obliterated. On a pillar or column at Aleandria, the architect cut his own name at the base deep in the stone. On the plaster or stucco with which the column was covered, he inscribed the name of the person to whose honor it was reared. The consequence was, that that name became soon obliterated; his own then appeared, and was permanent. But the meaning here is rather, that the apothegms and maxims behind which they entrenched themselves were like mud walls, and could not withstand an attack.

Verse 13Hold your peace - Margin, Be silent from me; see Job 13:5. It is possible that Job may have perceived in them some disposition to interrupt him in a rude manner in reply to the severe remarks which he had made, and he asked the privilege, therefore, of being permitted to go on, and to say what he intended, let come what would.And let come on me what will - Anything, whether reproaches from you, or additional sufferings from the hand of God. Allow me to express my sentiments, whatever may be the consequences to myself. One cannot but be forcibly reminded by this verse of the remark of the Greek philosopher, “Strike, but hear me.”

Verse 14Wherefore do I take my flesh in my teeth - The meaning of the proverbial expressions in this verse is not very clear. They indicate a state of great danger; but the exact sense of the proverbs it has been difficult to ascertain. Some have

supposed that the phrase “to take the flesh in the teeth,” is significant of a state of famine, where a man dying from this cause would cease upon his own flesh and devour it; others, that it refers to the contentions of voracious animals, struggling for a piece of flesh; others, that it refers to the fact that what is borne in the teeth is liable to be dropped, and that Job regarded his life as in such a perilous condition. Schultens regards it as denoting that bold courage in which a man exposes his life to imminent peril. He supposes that it is to be taken in connection with the previous verse, as intimating that he would go forward and speak at any rate, whatever might be the result.He translates it, “Whatever may be the event, I will take my flesh in my teeth, and my life in my hand.” In this interpretation Rosenmuller concurs. Noyes renders it, “I will count it nothing to bear my flesh in my teeth.” Good, “Let what may - I will carry my flesh in my teeth; ‹ and supposes that the phrase is equivalent to saying, that he would incur any risk or danger. The proverb he supposes is taken from the contest which so frequently takes place between dogs and other carnivorous quadrupeds, when one of them is carrying a bone or piece of flesh in his mouth, which becomes a source of dispute and a prize to be fought for. The Vulgate renders it, “Quare lacero carnes meus dentibus meis.” The Septuagint, “Taking my flesh in my teeth, I will put my life in my hand.” It seems to me, that the language is to be taken in connection with the previous verse, and is not to be regarded as an interrogatory, but as a declaration. “Let come upon me anything - whatever it may be - - mah מה Job 13:13 on account of that, or in reference to that - - al -mah‛ על־מה Job 13:14, I will take my life in my hand, braving any and every danger.”It is a firm and determined purpose that he would express his sentiments, no matter what might occur - even if it involved the peril of his life. The word “flesh” I take to be synonymous with life, or with his best interests; and the figure is probably taken from the fact that animals thus carry their prey or spoil in their teeth. Of course, this would be a poor protection. It would be liable to be seized by others. It might even tempt and provoke others to seize it: and would lead to conflict and perils. So Job felt that the course he was pursuing would lead him into danger, but he was determined to pursue it, let come what might.And put my life in mine hand - This is a proverbial expression, meaning the same as, I will expose myself to danger. Anything of value taken in the hand is liable to be rudely snatched away. It is like taking a casket of jewels, or a purse of gold, in the hand, which may at any moment be seized by robbers. The phrase is

not uncommon in the Scriptures to denote exposure to great peril; compare Psalm 119:109, “My soul is continually in my hand;” 1 Samuel 19:5 , “For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine;” Judges 12:3, “I put my life in my hands, and passed over against the children of Ammon.” A similar expression occurs in the Greek Classics denoting exposure to imminent danger - εν τη χειρι την ψυχην εχει en te cheiri ten psuchen echei - “he has his life in his hand;” see Rosenmuller on Psalm 119:109. The Arabs have a somewhat similar proverb, as quoted by Schultens, “His flesh is upon a butcher‘s block.”

Verse 15Though he slay me - “God may so multiply my sorrows and pains that I cannot survive them. I see that I may be exposed to increased calamities, yet I am willing to meet them. If in maintaining my own cause, and showing that I am not a hypocrite Job 13:16, it should so happen that my sufferings should be so increased that I should die, yet I will do it.” The word “slay,” or “kill,” here refers to temporal death. It has no reference to punishment in the future world, or to the death of the soul. It means merely that Job was determined to maintain his cause and defend his character, though his sufferings should be so increased that life would be the forfeit. Such was the extent of his sufferings, that he had reason to suppose that they would terminate in death; and yet notwithstanding this, it was his fixed purpose to confide in God; compare the notes at Job 19:25-27. This was spoken in Job‘s better moments, and was his deliberate and prevailing intention. This deliberate purpose expresses what was really the character of the man, though occasionally, when he became impatient, he gave utterance to different sentiments and feelings. We are to look to the prevailing and habitual tenor of a man‘s feelings and declared principles, in order to determine what his character is, and not to expressions made under the influence of temptation, or under the severity of pain. On the sentiment here expressed, compare Psalm 23:4; Proverbs 14:32.Yet will I trust in him - The word used here (יחל yachal ) means properly to wait, stay, delay; and it usually conveys the idea of waiting on one with an expectation of aid or help. Hence, it means to hope. The sense here is, that his expectation or hope was in God; and if the sense expressed in our common version be correct, it implies that even in death, or after death, he would confide in God. He would adhere to him, and would still feel that beyond death he would bless him.

In him - In God. But there is here an important variation in the reading. The present Hebrew is לא lo' - “not.” The Qeriy or marginal reading, is with a ו (v ) - “in him.” Jerome renders it as if it were לו lo - “in ipso,” that is, in him. The Septuagint followed some reading which does not now appear in any copies of the Hebrew text, or which was the result of mere imagination: “Though the Almighty, as he hath begun, may subdue me - χειρωσεται cheirosetai - yet will I speak, and maintain my cause before him.” The Chaldee renders it, קדמוי אצלי - I will pray before him; evidently reading it as if it were לו lo “in him.” So the Syriac, in him. I have no doubt, therefore, that this was the ancient reading, and that the true sense is retained in our common version though Rosenmuller, Good, Noyes, and others, have adopted the other reading, and suppose that it is to be taken as a negative.Noyes renders it,” Lo! he slayeth me, and I have no hope!” Good, much worse, “Should he even slay me, I would not delay.” It may be added, that there are frequent instances where lo' and לא lo are לו interchanged, and where the copyist seems to have been determined by the sound rather than by a careful inspection of the letters. According to the Masoretes, there are fifteen places where ”,lo' “not לא is written for lo “to לו him.” Exodus 21:8; Leviticus 11:21; Leviticus 25:30; 1 Samuel 2:3 ; 2 Samuel 16:18 ; Psalm 100:4; Psalm 139:16; Job 13:15; Job 41:4; Ezra 4:2; Proverbs 19:7; Proverbs 26:2; Isaiah 9:2; Isaiah 63:9. On the other hand, lo is put for לו lo' in לא 1 Samuel 2:16 ; 1 Samuel 20:2 ; Job 6:21. A mistake of this kind may have easily occurred here. The sentiment here expressed is one of the noblest that could fall from the lips of man. It indicates unwavering confidence in God, even in death.It is the determination of a mind to adhere to him, though he should strip away comfort after comfort, and though there should be no respite to his sorrows until he should sink down in death. This is the highest expression of piety, and thus it is the privilege of the friends of God to experience. When professed earthly friends become cold toward us, our love for them also is chilled. Should they leave and forsake us in the midst of suffering and want, and especially should they leave us on a bed of death, we should cease to confide in them. But not so in respect to God. Such is the nature of our confidence in him, that though he takes away comfort after comfort, though our health is destroyed and our friends are removed, and though we are led down into the valley and the shadow of death, yet still we never lose our confidence in him. We feel that all will yet be well. We look forward to another state, and anticipate the blessedness of another

and a better world.Reader, can you in sincerity lift the eye toward God, and say to him, “Though Thou dost slay me, though comfort after comfort is taken away, though the waves of trouble roll over me, and though I go down into the valley of the shadow of death, yet i will trust in thee; - Thine I will be even then, and when all is dark I will believe that God is right, and just, and true, and good, and will never doubt that he is worthy of my eternal affection and praise?” Such is religion. Where else is it found but in the views of God and of his government which the Bible reveals. The infidel may have apathy in his sufferings, the blasphemer may be stupid, the moralist or the formalist may be unconcerned; but that is not to have confidence in God. That results from religion alone.But I will maintain mine own ways before him - Margin, “prove,” or “argue.” The sense is, I will “vindicate” my ways, or myself. That is, I will maintain that I am his friend, and that I am not a hypocrite. His friends charged him with insincerity. They were not able, Job supposed, to appreciate his arguments and to do justice to him. He had, therefore, expressed the wish to carry his cause directly before God Job 13:3; and he was assured that he would do justice to his arguments. Even should he slay him, he would still stand up as his friend, and would still maintain that his calamities had not come upon him, as his friends supposed, because he was a hypocrite and a secret enemy of his Maker.

Verse 16He also shalt be my salvation - See the notes at Isaiah 12:2. Literally, “He is unto me for salvation,” that is, “I put my trust in him, and he will save me. The opportunity of appearing before God, and of maintaining my cause in his presence, will result in my deliverance from the charges which are alleged against me. I shall be able there to show that I am not a hypocrite, and God will become my defender.”For an hypocrite shall not come before him - This seems to be a proverb, or a statement of a general and indisputable principle. Job admitted this to be true. Yet he expected to be able to vindicate himself before God, and this gould prove that he was not an hypocrite - on the general principle that a man who was permitted to stand before God and to obtain his favor, could not be an unrighteous man. To God he looked with confidence; and God, he had no doubt, would be his defender. This fact would prove that he could not be an hypocrite, as his friends maintained.

Verse 17Hear diligently my speech - That which I have made; that is, the declaration which I have made of my innocence. He refers to his solemn declaration, Job 13:15-16 that he had unwavering confidence in God, and that even should God slay him he would put confidence in him. This solemn appeal he wished them to attend to as one of the utmost importance.

Verse 18I have ordered my cause - literally. “judgment?” - mıshpat The משפט Septuagint renders it, “I am near ( εγγυς ειμι engus eimi ) to my judgment,” or my trial. The meaning may be, that he had gone through the pleading, and had said what he wished in self-vindication, and he was willing to leave the cause with God, and did not doubt the issue. Or more probably, I think, the word ערכתי ‛araketıy should be taken, as the word ,yada‛tıy is, in the present tense ידעתי meaning “I now set in order my cause; I enter on the pleading; I am confident that I shall so present it as to be declared righteous.”I know that I shall be justified - I have no doubt as to the issue. I shall be declared to be an holy man, and not a hypocrite. The word rendered “I shall be justified” (אצדק 'etsadaq ) is used here in the proper and literal sense of the word justify. It is a term of law; and means, “I shall be declared to be righteous. I shall be shown not to be guilty in the form charged on me, and shall be acquitted or vindicated.” This sense is different from that which so often occurs in the Scriptures when applied to the doctrine of the justification of a sinner. Then it means, to treat one AS IF he were righteous, though he is personally guilty and undeserving.

Verse 19Who is he that will plead with me? - That is, “who is there now that will take up the cause, and enter into an argument against me? I have set my cause before God. I appeal now to all to take up the argument against me, and have no fear if they do as to the result. I am confident of a sucessful issue, and await calmly the divine adjudication.”For now, if I hold my tongue I shall give up the ghost - This translation, in my view, by no means expresses the sense of the original, if indeed it is not exactly the reverse. According to this version, the meaning is, that if he did not go into a

vindication of himself he would die. The Hebrew, however is, “for now I will be silent, and die.” That is, “I have maintained my cause, I will say no more. If there is anyone who can successfully contend with me, and can prove that my course cannot be vindicated, then I have no more to say. I will be silent, and die. I will submit to my fate without further argument, and without a complaint. I have said all that needs to be said, and nothing would remain but to submit and die.”

Verse 20Only do not two - things “unto me.” The two things which are specified in the following verse. This is an address to God as Job argues his cause before him, and the request is, that he would remove every obstacle to his presenting his cause in the most favorable manner, and so that he may be on equal terms with him. See the notes at Job 9:34-35. He was ready to present his cause, and to plead before God, as Job 13:18 he had the utmost confidence that he would be able so to present it as to vindicate himself; and he asks of God that he would withdraw his hand for a time Job 13:21 and not terrify him Job 13:21, so that he could present his case with the full vigor of his mind and body, and so that he need not be overawed by the sense of the majesty and glory of the Most High. He wished to be free to present his cause without the impediments arising from a deeply distressing and painful malady. He wished to have his full intellectual and bodily vigor restored for a time to him, and then he was confident that he could successfully defend himself. He felt that, he was now enfeebled by disease, and incapacitated from making the effort for self-vindication and for maintaining his cause, which he would have been enabled to make in his palmy days.Then will I not hide myself from thee - From God. I will stand forth boldly and maintain my cause. I will not attempt to conceal myself, or shun the trial and the argument. See Job 9:34-35.

Verse 21Withdraw thine hand far from me - Notes Job 9:34. The hand of God here is used to denote the calamity or affliction which Job was suffering. The meaning is, “Remove my affliction; restore me to health, and I will then enter on the argument in vindication of my cause. I am now oppressed, and broken down, and enfeebled by disease, and I cannot present it with the vigor which I might evince if I were in health.”

And let not thy dread make me afraid - “Do not so overpower me by thy severe majesty, that I cannot present my cause in a calm and composed manner.” See the notes at Job 9:34. Job felt that God had power to overawe him, and he asked, therefore, that he might have a calm and composed mind, and then he would be able to do justice to his own cause.

Verse 22Then call thou, and I will answer - Call me to trial; summon me to make my defense. This is language taken from courts of justice, and the idea is, that if God would remove his calamity, and not overawe him, and would then call on him to make a defense, he would be ready to respond to his call. The language means, “be thou plaintiff in the case, and I will enter on my defense.” He speaks now to God not as to a judge but as a party, and is disposed to go to trial. See the notes at Job 9:33-35.Or let me speak, and answer thou me - “Let me be the plaintiff, and commence the cause. In any way, let the cause come to an issue. Let me open the cause, adduce my arguments, and defend my view of the subject; and then do thou respond.” The idea is, that Job desired a fair trial. He was willing that God should select his position, and should either open the cause, or respond to it when he had himself opened it. To our view, there is something that is quite irreverent in this language, and I know not that it can be entirely vindicated. But perhaps, when the idea of a trial was once suggested, all the rest may be regarded as the mere filling up, or as language fitted to carry out that single idea, and to preserve the concinnity of the poem. Still, to address God in this manner is a wide license even for poetry. There is the language of complaint here; there is an evident feeling that God was not right; there is an undue reliance of Job on his own powers; there is a disposition to blame God which we can by no means approve, and which we are not required to approve. But let us not too harshly blame the patriarch. Let him who has suffered much and long, who feels that he is forsaken by God and by man, who has lost property and friends, and who is suffering under a painful bodily malady, if he has never had any of those feelings, cast the first stone. Let not those blame him who live in affluence and prosperity, and who have yet to endure the first severe trial of life. One of the objects, I suppose, of this poem is, to show human nature as it is; to show how good people often feel under severe trial; and it would not be true to nature if the

representation had been that Job was always calm, and that he never cherished an improper feeling or gave vent to an improper thought.

Verse 23How many are mine iniquities and sins? - Job takes the place of the plaintiff or accuser. He opens the cause. He appeals to God to state the catalogue of his crimes, or to bring forward his charges of guilt against him. The meaning, according to Schultens, is, “That catalogue ought to be great which has called down so many and so great calamities upon my head from heaven, when I am conscious to myself of being guilty of no offence.” God sorely afflicted him. Job appeals to him to show why it was done, and to make a statement of the number and the magnitude of his offences.Make me to know - I would know on what account and why I am thus held to be guilty, and; why I am thus punished.

Verse 24Wherefore hidest thou thy face - To hide the face, or to turn it away, is expressive of disapprobation. We turn away the face when we are offended with anyone. See the notes at Isaiah 1:15.And holdest me for thine enemy - Regardest and treatest me as an enemy.

Verse 25Wilt thou break a leaf driven to and fro? - Job here means to say that the treatment of God in regard to him was like treading down a leaf that was driven about by the wind - an insigni ficant, unsettled, and worthless thing. “Wouldst thou show thy power against such an object?” - The sense is, that it was not worthy of God thus to pursue one so unimportant, and so incapable of offering any resistance.And wilt thou pursue the dry stubble? - Is it worthy of God thus to contend with the driven straw and stubble of the field? To such a leaf, and to such stubble, he compares himself; and he asks whether God could be employed in a work such as that would be, of pursuing such a flying leaf or driven stubble with a desire to overtake it, and wreak his vengeance on it.

Verse 26

For thou writest bitter things against me - Charges or accusations of severity. We use the word “bitter” now in a somewhat similar sense. We speak of bitter sorrow, bitter cold, etc. The language here is all taken from courts of justice, and Job is carrying cut the train of thought on which he had entered in regard to a trial before God. He says that the accusations which God had brought against him were of a bitter and severe character; charging him with aggravated offences, and recalling the sins of his youth, and holding him responsible for them. Rosenmuller remarks that the word “write” here is a judicial term, referring to the custom of writing the sentence of a person condemned (as in Psalm 149:9; Jeremiah 22:30); that is, decreeing the punishment. So the Greeks used the expression γραφεσθαι δικην graphesthai diken meaning to declare a judicial sentence. So the Arabs use the word “kitab,” writing, to denote a judicial sentence.And makest me to possess - Hebrew Causest me to inherit - ותורישני vetorıyshenıy He was heir to them; or they were now his as a possession or an inheritance. The Vulgate renders it, consumere me vis, etc. “thou wishest to consume me with the sins of my youth.” The Septuagint, “and thou dost charge against me” - περιεφηκας perithekas The iniquities of my youth - The offences which I committed when young. He complains now that God recalled all those offences; that he went into days that were past, and raked up what Job had forgotten; that, not satisfied with charging on him what he had done as a man, he went back and collected all that could be found in the days when he was under the influence of youthful passions, and when, like other young men, he might have gone astray. But why should he not do it? What impropriety could there be in God in thus recalling the memory of long-forgotten sins, and causing the results to meet him now that he was a man? We may remark here,(1) That this is often done. The sins and follies of youth seem often to be passed over or to be unnoticed by God. Long intervals of time or long tracts of land or ocean may intervene between the time when sin was committed in youth, and when it shall be punished in age. The man may himself have forgotten it, and after a youth of dissipation and folly he may perhaps have a life of prosperity for many years. But those sins are not forgotten by God. Far on in life the results of early dissipation, licentiousness, folly, will meet the offender, and overwhelm him in disgrace or calamity.(2) God has power to recall all the offences of early life. He has access to the soul. He knows all its secret springs. With infinite ease he can reach the memory

of a long-forgotten deed of guilt; and he can overwhelm the mind with the recollection of crimes that have not been thought of for years. He can fix the attention with painful intensity on some slight deed of past criminality; or he can recall forgotten sins in groups; or he can make the remembrance of one sin suggest a host of others. No man who has passed a guilty youth can be certain that his mind will not be overwhelmed with painful recollections, and however calm and secure he may now be, he may in a moment be harassed with the consciousness of deep criminality, and with most gloomy apprehensions of the wrath to come.(3) A young man should be pure. He has otherwise no security of respectability in future life, or of pleasant recollections of the past, should he reach old age. He who spends his early days in dissipation must expect to reap the fruits of it in future years. Those sins will meet him in his way, and most probably at an unexpected moment, and in an unexpected place. If he ever becomes a good man, he will have many an hour of bitter and painful regret at the follies of his early life; if he does not, he will meet the accumulated results of his sin on the bed of death and in hell. Somewhere, and somehow, every instance of folly is to be remembered hereafter, and will be remembered with sighs and tears.(4) God rules among people, There is a moral government on the earth. Of this there is no more certain proof than in this fact. The power of summoning up past sins to the recollection; of recalling those that have been forgotten by the offender himself, and of placing them in black array before the guilty man; and of causing them to seize with a giant‘s grasp upon the soul, is a power such as God alone can wield, and shows at once that there is a God, and that he rules in the hearts of people. And(5) If God holds this power now, he will hold it in the world to come. The forgotten sins of youth, and the sins of age, will be remembered then. The sinner walks over a volcano. It may be now calm and still. Its base may be crowned with verdure, its sides with orchards and vineyards; and far up its heights the tall tree may wave, and on its summit the snow may lie undisturbed. But at any moment that mountain may heave, and the burning torrent spread desolation every where. So with the sinner. He knows not how soon the day of vengeance may come; how soon he may be made to inherit the sins of his youth.

Verse 27

Thou puttest my feet also in the stocks - The word rendered “stocks” (סד sad ), denotes the wooden frame or block in which the feet of a person were confined for punishment. The whole passage here is designed to describe the feet; as so confined in a clog or clogs, as to preclude the power of motion. Stocks or clogs were used often in ancient times as a mode of punishment. Proverbs 7:22. Jeremiah was punished by being confined in the stocks. Jeremiah 20:2; Jeremiah 29:2, Jeremiah 29:6. Paul and Silas were in like manner confined in the prison in stocks; Acts 16:24. Stocks appear to have been of two kinds. They were either clogs attached to one foot or to both feet, so as to embarrass, but not entirely to prevent walking, or they were fixed frames to which the feet were attached so as entirely to preclude motion. The former were often used with runaway slaves to prevent their escaping again when taken, or were affixed to prisoners to prevent their escape. The fixed kinds - which are probably referred to here - were of different sorts. They consisted of a frame, with holes for the feet only; or for the feet and the hands; or for the feet, the hands, and the neck. At Pompeii, stocks have been found so contrived that ten prisoners might be chained by the leg, each leg separately by the sliding of a bar. “Pict. Bible.” The instrument is still used in India, and is such as to confine the limbs in a very distressing position, though the head is allowed to move freely.And lookest narrowly unto all my paths - This idea occurs also in Job 33:11, though expressed somewhat differently, “He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths.” Probably the allusion is to the paths by which he might escape. God watched or observed every way - as a sentinel or guard would a prisoner who was hampered or clogged, and who would make an attempt to escape.Thou settest a print upon the heels of my feet - Margin, “roots.” Such also is the Hebrew - שרשי רגלי shereshy regely Vulgate, “vestigia.” Septuagint, “Upon the roots - εις δε ριζας eis de rizas - of my feet thou comest.” The word שרש sharash means properly “root;” then the “bottom,” or the lower part of a thing; and hence, the soles of the feet. The word rendered” settest a print,” from חקה chaqah means to cut in, to hew, to hack; then to engrave, carve, delineate, portray; then to dig. Various interpretations have been given of the passage here. Gesenius supposes it to mean, “Around the roots of my feet thou hast digged,” that is, hast made a trench so that I can get no further. But though this suits the connection, yet it is an improbable interpretation. It is not the way in which one

would endeavor to secure a prisoner, to make a ditch over which he could not leap.Others render it, “Around the soles of my feet thou hast drawn lines,” that is, thou hast made marks how far I may go. Dr. Good supposes that the whole description refers to some method of clogging a wild animal for the purpose of taming him, and that the expression here refers to a mark on the hoof of the animal by which the owner could designate him. Noyes accords with Gesenius. The editor of the Pictorial Bible supposes that it may refer to the manner in which the stocks were made, and that it means that a seal was affixed to the parts of the plank of which they were constructed, when they were joined together. He adds that the Chinese have a portable pillory of this kind, and that offenders are obliged to wear it around their necks for a given period, and that over the place where it is joined together a piece of paper is pasted, that it may not be opened without detection. Rosenmuller supposes that it means, that Job was confined within certain prescribed limits, beyond which he was not allowed to go. This restraint he supposes was effected by binding his feet by a cord to the stocks, so that he was not allowed to go beyond a certain distance. The general sense is clear, that Job was confined within certain limits, and was observed with very marked vigilance. But I doubt whether either of the explanations suggested is the true one. Probably some custom is alluded to of which we have no knowledge now - some mark that was affixed to the feet to prevent a prisoner from escaping without being detected. What that was, I think, we do not know. Perhaps Oriental researches will yet disclose some custom that will explain it.

Verse 28And he, as a rotten thing, consumeth - Noyes renders this, “And I, like an abandoned thing, shall waste away.” Dr. Good translates it, “Well may he dissolve as corrupttion.” Rosenmuller supposes that Job refers to himself by the word הוא hu' - he, and that having spoken of himself in the previous verses, he now changes the mode of speech, and speaks in the third person. In illustration of this, he refers to a passage in Euripides, “Alcestes,” verse 690. The Vulgate renders it in the first person, “Qui quasi putredo consumendus sum.” The design seems to be, to represent himself as an object not worthy such consent surveillance on the part of God. God set his mark upon him; watched him with a close vigilance and a steady eye - and yet he was watching one who was turning fast to corruption, and who would soon be gone. He regarded it as unworthy of

God, to be so attentive in watching over so worthless an object. This is closely connected with the following chapter, and there should have been no interruption here. The allusion to himself as feeble and decaying, leads him into the beautiful description in the following chapter of the state of man in general. The connection is something like this: - “I am afflicted and tried in various ways. My feet are in the stocks; my way is hedged up. I am weak, frail, and dying. But so it is with man universally. My condition is like that of the man at large, for“Man, the offspring of a woman,Is short-lived, and is full of trouble.”As a rotten thing, - keraqab The word כרקב raqab means rottenness, or רקב caries of bones; Proverbs 12:4; Proverbs 14:30; Hosea 5:12. Here it means anything that is going to decay, and the comparison is that of man to anything that is thus constantly decaying, and that will soon be wholly gone.Consumeth. - Or rather “decays,” יבלה yıbalah The word בלה balah is applied to that which falls away or decays, which is worn out and waxes old - as a garment; Deuteronomy 8:4; Isaiah 50:9; Isaiah 51:6.As a garment that is moth-eaten - “As a garment the moth consumes it.” Hebrew On the word moth, and the sentiment here expressed, see the notes at Job 4:19.14 Chapter 14 Verse 1Man that is born of a woman - See the notes at Job 13:28. The object of Job in these verses, is to show the frailty and feebleness of man. He, therefore, dwells on many circumstances adapted to this, and this is one of the most stirring and beautiful. He alludes to the delicacy and feebleness, of the female sex, and says that the offspring of one so frail must himself be frail; the child of one so feeble must himself be feeble. Possibly also there may be an allusion here to the prevailing opinion in the Oriental world of the inferiority of the female sex. The following forcible lines by Lord Bacon, express a similar sentiment:The world‘s a bubble, and the life of manLess than a span,In his conception wretched, from the wombSo to the tomb.Curst from the cradle, and brought up to yearsWith cares and fears.Who then to frail mortality shall trust.

But limns the water, or but writes in dust.Of few days - Hebrew “Brief of days;” compare Psalm 90:10; Genesis 47:9.And full of trouble - Compare the notes at Job 3:17. Who cannot bear witness to this? How expressive a description is it of life! And even too where life seems most happy; where the sun of prosperity seems to shine on our way, and where blessings like drops of dew seem to descend on us, how true is it still theft life is full of trouble, and that the way of man is a weary way! Despite all that he can do - all his care, and skill, and learning and wealth, life is a weary pilgrimage, and is burdened with many woes. “Few and evil have the days of the years of my pilgrimage been, ‹ said the patriarch Jacob, and they who have advanced near the same number of years with him can utter with deep emotion the same beautiful language. Goethe, the celebrated German, said of himself in advanced age, “They have called me a child of fortune, nor have I any wish to complain of the course of my life. Yet it has been nothing but labor and sorrow, and I may truly say that in seventy-five years I have not had four weeks of true comfort. It was the constant rolling of a stone that was always to be lifted anew. When I look back upon my earlier and middle life, and consider how few are left of those that were young with me, I am reminded of a summer visit to a watering-place. On arriving one makes the acquaintance of those who have been already some time there, and leave the week following. This loss is painful. Now one becomes attached to the second generation, with which one lives for a time and becomes intimately connected. But this also passes away and leaves us solitary with the third, which arrives shortly before our own departure, and with which we have no desire to have much contact.” - Rauch‘s Psychology, p. 343.

Verse 2He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down - Nothing can be more obvious and more beautiful than this, and the image has been employed by writers in all ages, but nowhere with more beauty, or with more frequency than in the Bible; see Isaiah 40:6; Psalm 37:2; Psalm 90:6; Psalm 103:15. Next to the Bible, it is probable that Shakespeare has employed the image with the most exquisite beauty of any poet:This is the state of man; today he puts forthThe tender leaves of hope, tomorrow blossoms,And bears his blushing honors thick upon him;The third day comes a frost a killing frost,

And - when he thinks, good easy man, full surelyHis greatness is a ripening - nips his root,And then he falls.Henry viii. Act iii. Sc. 2.He fleeth also as a shadow - Another exquisite figure, and as true as it is beautiful. So the Psalmist:My days are like a shadow that declineth.Psalm 102:11.Man is like to vanity;His days are as a shadowy that passeth away.Psalm 144:4.The idea of Job is, that there is no substance, nothing that is permanent. A shadow moves on gently and silently, and is soon gone. It leaves no trace of its being, and returns no more. They who have watched the beautiful shadow of a cloud on a landscape, and have seen how rapidly it passes ever meadows and fields of grain, and rolls up the mountain side and disappears, will have a vivid conception of this figure. How gently yet how rapidly it moves. How soon it is gone. How void of impression is its course. Who can track its way; who can reach it? So man moves on. Soon he is gone; he leaves no trace of his being, and returns no more.

Verse 3And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one? - Is one so weak, so frail, so short-lived, worthy the constant vigilance of the infinite God? In Zechariah 12:4, the expression “to open the eyes” upon one, means to look angrily upon him. Here it means to observe or watch closely.And bringest me into judgment with thee - Is it equal or proper that one so frail and feeble should be called to a trial with one so mighty as the infinite God? Does God seek a trial with one so much his inferior, and so unable to stand before him? This is language taken from courts of justice, and the meaning is, that the parties were wholly unequal, and that it was unworthy of God to maintain a controversy in this manner with feeble man. This is a favorite idea with Job, that there was no equality between him and God, and that the whole controversy was, therefore, conducted on his part with great disadvantage; compare the notes at Job 9:34-35.

Verse 4Who can bring a clean - thing “out of an unclean?” This is evidently a proverb or an adage; but its connection here is not very apparent. Probably, however, it is designed as a plea of mitigation for his conscious frailties and infirmities. He could not but admit that he had faults. But he asks, how could it be expected to be otherwise? He belonged to a race that was sinful and depraved. Connected with such a race, how could it be otherwise than that he should be prone to evil? Why then did God follow him with so much severity, and hold him with a grasp so close and so unrelenting? Why did he treat him as if he ought to be expected to be perfectly pure, or as if it were reasonable to suppose he would be otherwise than unholy? This passage is of great value as showing the early opinion of the world in regard to the native character of man. The sentiment was undoubtedly common - so common as to have passed into a proverb - that man was a sinner; and that it could not be expected that anyone of the race should be pure and holy.The sentiment is as true as it is obvious - like will beget like all over the world. The nature of the lion, the tiger, the hyaena, the serpent is propagated, and so the same thing is true of man. It is a great law, that the offspring will resemble the parentage; and as the offspring of the lion is not a lamb but a young lion; of a wolf is not a kid but a young wolf, so the offspring of man is not an angel, but is a man with the same nature, the same moral character, the same proneness to evil with the parent. The Chaldee renders this: “Who will give one pure from a man polluted in sin, except God, who is one, and who forgiveth him?” But this is manifestly a departure from the sense of the passage. Jerome, however, has adopted nearly the same translation. As a historical record, this passage proves that the doctrine of original sin was early held in the world. Still it is true that the same great law prevails, that the off-spring of woman is a sinner - no matter where he may be born, or in what circumstances he may be placed. No art, no philosophy, no system of religion can prevent the operation of this great law under which we live, and by which we die; compare the notes at Romans 5:19.

Verse 5Seeing his days - are “determined” Since man is so frail, and so short-lived, let him alone, that he may pass his little time with some degree of comfort and then die; see the notes at Job 7:19-21. The word “determined” here means “fixed,

settled.” God has fixed the number of his days, so that they cannot be exceeded; compare the notes at Isaiah 10:23, and notes at Psalm 90:10.The number of his months are with thee - Thou hast the ordering of them, or they are determined by thee.Thou hast appointed his bounds - Thou hast fixed a limit, or hast determined the time which he is to live, and he cannot go beyond it. There is no elixir of life that can prolong our days beyond that period. Soon we shall come to that outer limit of life, and then we must die. When that is we know not, and it is not desirable to know. It is better that it should be concealed. If we knew that it was near, it would fill us with gloom, and deter us from the efforts and the plans of life altogether. If it were remote, we should be careless and secure, and should think there was time enough yet to prepare to die. As it is, we know that the period is not very far distant; we know not but that it may be very near at hand, and we would be always ready.

Verse 6Turn from him - - ;sha‛ah Look away from; or turn away the eyes שעה Isaiah 22:4. Job had represented the Lord as looking intently upon him, and narrowly watching all his ways. He now asks him that he would look away and suffer him to be alone, and to spend the little time he had in comfort and peace.That he may rest - Margin, “Cease.” “Let him be ceased from” - ויחדל veychadal The idea is not that of rest, but it is that of having God cease to afflict him; or, in other words, leaving him to himself. Job wished the hand of God to be withdrawn, and prayed that he might be left to himself.Till he shall accomplish - - עד־ירצה ‛ad -yırtseh Septuagint, ειδοκηση τον βιον eidokese ton bion - “and comfort his life,” or make his life pleasant. Jerome renders it, “until his desired day - “optata dies” - shall come like that of an hireling.” Dr. Good, “that he may fill up his day.” Noyes, “that he may enjoy his day.” The word used here (רצה ratsah ) means properly to delight in, to take pleasure in, to satisfy, to pay off; and there can be no doubt that there was couched under the use of this word the notion of “enjoyment,” or “pleasure.” Job wished to be spared, that he might have comfort yet in this world. The comparison of himself with a hireling, is not that he might have comfort like a hireling - for such an image would not be pertinent or appropriate - but that his life was like that of an hireling, and he wished to be let alone until the time was completed. On this sentiment, see the notes at Job 7:1.

Verse 7For there is hope of a tree - This passage to Job 14:12, is one of exquisite beauty. Its object is to state reasons why man should be permitted to enjoy this life. A tree, if cut down, might spring up again and flourish; but not man. He died to rise no more; he is cut down and lives not again. The passage is important as expressing the prevalent sentiment of the time in which Job lived about the future condition of man, and is one that deserves a close examination. The great question is, whether Job believed in the future state, or in the resurrection of the dead? On this question one or two things are clear at the outset.(1) He did not believe that man would spring up from the grave in any sense similar to the mode in which the sprout or germ of a tree grows up when the tree is cut down.(2) He did not believe in the doctrine of metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls; a doctrine that was so common among the ancients.In this respect the patriarchal religion stood aloof from the systems of paganism, and there is not to be found, that I know of, any expression that would lead us to suppose that they had ever embraced it, or had even heard of it. The general sentiment here is, that if a tree is cut down, it may be expected to shoot up again, and another tree will be found in its place - as is the case with the chestnut, the willow, the oak. But Job says that there was nothing like this to happen to man. There was no root, no germ, no seminal principle from which he would be made to live again on the earth. He was to be finally cut off, from all his pleasures and his friends here, and to go away to return no more. Still, that Job believed in his continued existence beyond the grave - his existence in the dark and gloomy world of shades, is apparent from the whole book, and indeed from the very passage before us; see Job 14:13 - compare Job 10:21-22. The image here is one that is very beautiful, and one that is often employed by poets. Thus, Moschus, in his third Idyl, as translated by Gisborne:The meanest herb we trample in the field,Or in the garden nurture, when its leafAt winter‘s touch is blasted, and its placeForgotten, soon its vernal bud renews,And from short slumber wakes to life again.Man wakes no more! Man, valiant, glorious, wise,When death once chills him, sinks in sleep profound.

A long, unconscious, never-ending sleep.See also Beattie‘s Hermit:‹Tis night, and the landscape is lovely no more;I mourn, but ye woodlands, I mourn not for you;For morn is approaching, your charms to restore,Perfumed with fresh fragrance, and glittering with dew.Nor yet for the ravage of winter I mourn;Kind nature the embryo blossom will save;But when shall spring visit the mouldering urn?O when shall it dawn on the night of the grave?The same image, also, has been beautifully employed by Dr. Dwight, though urged by him as an argument to prove the doctrine of the resurrection:In those lone, silent realms of night,Shall peace and hope no more arise?No future morning light the tomb,Nor day-star gild the darksome skies?Shall spring the faded world revive?Shall waning moons their light renew?Again shall setting suns ascend,And chase the darkness from our view?The feeling of Job here is, that when man was removed from the earth, he was removed finally; that there was no hope of his revisiting it again, and that he could not be employed in the dark abode of departed spirits in the cheerful and happy manner in which he might be in this world of light. This idea is expressed, also, in a most tender manner by the Psalmist:Wilt thou show wonders to the dead?Shall the dead arise and praise thee?Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave?Or thy faithfulness in destruction?Shall thy wonders be known in the dark?And thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?Psalm 88:10-12.And the same feelings were evinced by Hezekiah, the pious king of Israel:For Sheol cannot praise thee;Death cannot celebrate thee;They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day;The father to the children shall make known thy faithfulness.Isaiah 38:18-19.All these gloomy and desponding views arose from the imperfect conception which they had of the future world. It was to them a world of dense and gloomy shades - a world of night - of conscious existence indeed - but still far away from light, and from the comforts which people enjoyed on the earth. We are to remember that the revelations then made were very few and obscure; and we should deem it a matter of inestimable favor that we have a better hope, and have far more just and clear views of the employments of the future world. Yet probably our views of that world, with all the light which we have, are much further from the reality than the views of the patriarchs were from those which we are permitted to cherish. Such as they are, however, they are fitted to elevate and cheer the soul. We shall not, indeed, live again on the earth, but we shall enter a world of light and glory, compared with which all that is glorious here shall fade away. Not far distant is that blessed world; and in our trials we may look to it not with dread, as Job did to the land of shades, but with triumph and joy.Will not cease - Will not fail, or be missing. It will spring up and live.

Verse 8Though the root thereof wax old - Though life becomes almost extinct. The idea is, though the root of the tree be very old, yet it does not become wholly lifeless. It is not like an old man, when life goes out altogether. In the very aged root there will be vitality still; but not so in man.Though the stock thereof - The stump - literally that which is cut off - גזעו geza‛o The meaning is, that when the trunk of the tree is cut down and dies altogether, life remains in the root; but when man fails, life is wholly extinct.

Verse 9Yet through the scent of water - The word here rendered “scent” (ריח reyach ) means properly the odor or fragrance which anything exhales or emits; Genesis 27:27. The idea is very delicate and poetic. It is designed to denote a gentle and pleasant contact - not a rush of water - by which the tree is made to live. It inhales, so to speak, the vital influence from the water - as we are refreshed and revived by grateful odorifles when we are ready to faint.

It will bud - Or, rather, it will germinate, or spring up again - יפרח yaparach see the notes at Isaiah 55:10.And bring forth boughs - qatsıyr This קציר word usually means a harvest; Genesis 8:22; Genesis 30:14; Genesis 45:6. It also means, as here, a bough, or branch; compare Psalm 80:11; Job 18:16; Job 29:19.Like a plant - Like a young plant - as fresh and vigorous as a plant that is set out.

Verse 10But man dieth and wasteth away - Margin, “Is weakened, or cut off.” The Hebrew word ( chalash חלש) means to overthrow, prostrate, discomfit; and hence, to be weak, frail, or waste away. The Septuagint renders it Ανηρ δε τελευτησας ωχετο Aner de teleutesas ocheto - “man dying goes away.” Herder renders it,” his power is gone.” The idea is, he entirely vanishes. He leaves nothing to sprout up again. There is no germ; no shoot; no living root; no seminal principle. Of course, this refers wholly to his living again on the earth, and not to the question about his future existence. That is a different inquiry. The main idea with Job here is, that when man dies there is no germinating principle, as there is in a tree that is cut down. Of the truth of this there can be no doubt; and this comparison of man with the vegetable world, must have early occurred to mankind, and hence, led to the inquiry whether he would not live in a future state. Other flyings that are cut down, spring up again and live. But man is cut down, and does not spring up again. Will he not be likely, therefore, to have an existence in some future state, and to spring up and flourish there? “The Romans,” says Rosenmuller, “made those trees to be the symbol of death, which, being cut down, do not live again, or from whose roots no germs arise, as the pine and cypress, which were planted in burial-places, or were accustomed to be placed at the doors of the houses of the dead.”Man giveth up the ghost - Expires, or dies. This is all that the word (גוע gava‛ ) means. The notion of giving up the spirit or the ghost - an idea not improper in itself - is not found in the Hebrew word, nor is it in the corresponding Greek word in the New Testament; compare Acts 5:10.

Verse 11As the waters fail from the sea - As the waters evaporate wholly, and leave the bottom wholly dry, so it is with man, who passes entirely away, and leaves

nothing. But to what fact Job refers here, is not known. The sea or ocean has never been dried up, so as to furnish a ground for this comparison. Noyes renders it, “the lake.” Dr. Good, without the slightest authority, renders it, “as the billows pass away with the tides.” Herder supposes it to mean that until the waters fail from the sea man will not rise again, but the Hebrew will not bear this interpretation. Probably the true interpretation is, that which makes the word rendered sea (ים yam ) refer to a lake, or a stagnant pool; see Isaiah 11:15, note; Isaiah 19:5, note. The word is applied not unfrequently to a lake, as to the lake of Genesareth, Numbers 34:11; to the Dead Sea, Genesis 14:3; Deuteronomy 4:49; Zechariah 14:8. It is used, also, to denote the Nile, Isaiah 19:5, and the Euphrates, Isaiah 27:1. It is also employed to denote the brass sea that was made by Solomon, and placed in front of the temple; 2 Kings 25:13 . I see no reason to doubt, therefore, that it may be used here to denote the collections of water, which were made by torrents pouring down from the mountains, and which would after a little while wholly evaporate.And the flood decayeth - The river - נהר nahar Such an occurrence would be common in the parched countries of the East; see the notes at Job 6:15 ff. As such torrents vanish wholly away, so it was with man. Every vestige disappeared; compare 2 Samuel 14:14 .

Verse 12So man lieth down, and riseth not - He lies down in the grave and does not rise again on the earth.Till the heavens be no more - That is, never; for such is the fair interpretation of the passage, and this accords with its design. Job means to say, undoubtedly, that man would never appear again in the land of the living; that he would not spring up from the grave, as a sprout does from a fallen tree; and that when he dies, he goes away from the earth never to return. Whether he believed in a future state, or in the future resurrection, is another question, and one that cannot be determined from this passage. His complaint is, that the present life is short, and that man when he has once passed through it cannot return to enjoy it again, if it has been unhappy; and he asks, therefore, why, since it was so short, man might not be permitted to enjoy it without molestation. It does not follow from this passage that he believed that the heavens ever would be no more, or would pass away.The heavens are the most permanent and enduring objects of which we have

any knowledge, and are, therefore, used to denote permanency and eternity; see Psalm 89:36-37. This verse, therefore, is simply a solemn declaration of the belief of Job that when man dies, he dies to live no more on the earth. Of the truth of this, no one can doubt - and the truth is as important and affecting as it is undoubted. If man could come back again, life would be a different thing. If he could revisit the earth to repair the evils of a wicked life, to repent of his errors, to make amends for his faults, and to make preparation for a future world, it would be a different thing to live, and a different thing to die. But when he travels over the road of life, he treads a path which is not to be traversed again. When he neglects an opportunity to do good, it cannot be recalled. When he commits an offence, he cannot come back to repair the evil. He falls, and dies, and lives no more. He enters on other scenes, and is amidst the retributions of another state. How important then to secure the passing moment, and to be prepared to go hence, to return no more! The idea here presented is one that is common with the poets. Thus, Horace says:Nobis, cum semel occidit brevis lux,Nox est perpetua una dormienda.

Verse 13Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the grave; - compare the notes at Job 3:11 ff. Hebrew “in Sheol” - ב־שאול bı -she'ol Vulgate, “in inferno.” Septuagint εν αδη en Hade - “in Hades.” On the meaning of the word “Sheol,” see the notes at Isaiah 5:14. It does not mean here, I think, the grave. It means the region of departed spirits, the place of the dead, where he wished to be, until the tempest of the wrath of God should pass by. He wished to be shut up in some place where the fury of that tempest would not meet him, and where he would be safe. On the meaning of this passage, however, there has been considerable variety of opinion among expositors. Many suppose that the word here properly means “the grave,” and that Job was willing to wait there until the wrath of God should be spent, and then that he desired to be brought forth in the general resurrection of the dead.So the Chaldee interprets it of the grave - קבורתא. There is evidently a desire on the part of Job to be hid in some secret place until the tempest of wrath should sweep by, and until he should be safe. There is an expectation that he would live again at some future period, and a desire to live after the present tokens of the wrath of God should pass by. It is probably a wish for a safe retreat or a hiding-

place - where he might be secure, as from a storm. A somewhat similar expression occurs in Isaiah 2:19, where it is said that people would go into holes and caverns until the storm of wrath should pass by, or in order to escape it. But whether Job meant the grave, or the place of departed spirits, cannot be determined, and is not material. In the view of the ancients the one was not remote from the other. The entrance to Sheol was the grave; and either of them would furnish the protection sought. It should be added, that the grave was with the ancients usually a cave, or an excavation from the rock, and such a place might suggest the idea of a hiding-place from the raging storm.That thou wouldest appoint me a set time - When I should be delivered or rescued. Herder renders this, “Appoint me then a new term.” The word rendered “a set time” - - choq חק means, properly, something decreed, prescribed, appointed and here an appointed time when God would remember or revisit him. It is the expression of his lingering love of life. He had wished to die. He was borne down by heavy trials, and desired a release. He longed even for the grave; compare Job 3:20-22. But there is the instinctive love of life in his bosom, and he asks that God would appoint a time, though ever so remote, in which he would return to him, and permit him to live again. There is the secret hope of some future life - though remote; and he is willing to be hid for any period of time until the wrath of God should pass by, if he might live again. Such is the lingering desire of life in the bosom of man in the severest trials, and the darkest hours; and so instinctively does man look on even to the most remote period with the hope of life. Nature speaks out in the desires of Job; and one of the objects of the poem is to describe the workings of nature with reference to a future state in the severe trials to which he was subjected. We cannot but remark here, what support and consolation would he have found in the clear revelation which we have of the future world, and what a debt of gratitude do we owe to that gospel which has brought life and immortality to light!

Verse 14If a man die, shall he live again? - This is a sudden transition in the thought. He had unconsciously worked himself up almost to the belief that man might live again even on the earth. He had asked to be hid somewhere - even in the grave - until the wrath of God should be overpast, and then that God would remember him, and bring him forth again to life. Here he checks himself. It cannot be, he says, that man will live again on the earth. The hope is visionary and vain, and I

will endure what is appointed for me, until some change shall come. The question here “shall he live again?” is a strong form of expressing negation. He will not live again on the earth. Any hope of that kind is, therefore, vain, and I will wait until the change come - whatever that may be.All the days of my appointed time - צבאי tsaba'ıy - my warfare; my enlistment; my hard service. See the notes at Job 7:1.Will I wait - I will endure with patience my trials. I will not seek to cut short the time of my service.Till my change come - What this should be, he does not seem to know. It might be relief from sufferings, or it might be happiness in some future state. At all events, this state of things could not last always, and under his heavy pressure of wo, he concluded to sit down and quietly wait for any change. He was certain of one thing - that life was to be passed over but once - that man could not go over the journey again - that he could not return to the earth and go over his youth or his age again. Grotius, and after him Rosenmuller and Noyes, here quotes a sentiment similar to this from Euripides, in “Supplicibus,” verses 1080ff.Οιμοι τι δη βροτοισιν ουκ εστιν τοδε,Νεους δις ειναι, και γεροντας αυ παλιν; κ. τ. λ. Oimoi ti de brotoisin ouk estin tode Neous dis einai kai gerontas au palin etc whole passage is thus elegantly translated by Grotius:Proh fata! cur non est datum mortalibusDuplici juventa, duplici senio frui?Intra penates siquid habet incommode,Fas seriore corrigi sententia;Hoc vita non permittit: at qui bis foretJuvenis senexque, siquid erratum foretPriore, id emendaret in cursu altero.The thought here expressed cannot but occur to every reflecting mind. There is no one who has not felt that he could correct the errors and follies of his life, if he were permitted to live it over again. But there is a good reason why it should not be so. What a world would this be if man knew that he might return and repair the evils of his course by living it over again! How securely in sin would he live! How little would he be restrained! How little concerned to be prepared for the life to come! God has, therefore, wisely and kindly put this out of the question; and there is scarcely any safeguard of virtue more firm than this fact. We may also observe that the feelings here expressed by Job are the appropriate expressions

of a pious heart. Man should wait patiently in trial until his change comes. To the friend of God those sorrows will be brief. A change will soon come - the last change - and a change for the better. Beyond that, there shall be no change; none will be desirable or desired. For that time we should patiently wait, and all the sorrows which may intervene before that comes, we should patiently bear.

Verse 15Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee - This is language taken from courts of justice. It refers, probably, not to a future time, but to the present. “Call thou now, and I will respond.” It expresses a desire to come at once to trial; to have the matter adjusted before he should leave the world. He could not bear the idea of going out of the world under the imputations which were lying on him, and he asked for an opportunity to vindicate himself before his Maker; compare the notes at Job 9:16.Thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands - To me, one of thy creatures. This should, with more propriety, be rendered in the imperative, “do thou have a desire.” It is the expression of an earnest wish that God would show an interest in him as one of his creatures, and would bring the matter to a speedy issue. The word here rendered, “have a desire” (תכסף tıkasaph ), means literally to be or become “pale” (from כסף keseph ), “silver,” so called from its paleness, like the Greek αργυρος arguros from αγρος agros white); and then the verb means to pine or long after anything, so as to become pale.

Verse 16For now thou numberest my steps - Thou dost make strict inquiry into all my conduct, that thou mayest mark my errors, and hold me bound to punishment. The sense is, that God treated him now with severity; and he besought him to have pity on him, and bring him to trial, and give him an opportunity to vindicate himself.

Verse 17My transgression is sealed up - The verb rendered sealed up (חתם chatham ) means to seal, to close, to shut up; see the notes at Isaiah 8:16; compare the notes at Job 9:7. It was common with the ancients to use a seal where we use a lock. Money was counted and put into a bag, and a seal was attached to it.

Hence, a seal might be put to a bag, as a sort of certificate of the amount, and to save the necessity of counting it again.In a bag - - bıtseror So בצרור Jerome, “in sacculo.” So the Septuagint, εν βαλαντιω en balantio The word צרור tseror means usually a “bundle” 1 Samuel 25:29; Job 26:8; Hosea 13:12; Exodus 12:34; Proverbs 26:8; Isaiah 8:16; Genesis 42:35; Proverbs 7:20); but here it is not improperly rendered a bag. The idea is, that they were counted and numbered like money, and then sealed up and carefully put away. God had made an accurate estimate of their number, and he seemed carefully to guard and observe them - as a man does bags of gold - so that none might be lost. His sins seemed to have become a sort of valuable treasure to the Almighty, none of which he allowed now to escape his notice.And thou sewest up mine iniquity - Noyes renders this, “and thou addest unto mine iniquity.” Good, “thou tiest together mine iniquity.” The word used here טפל taphal means properly to patch; to patch together; to sew to join together as carpenters do their work; and then to devise or forge - as a falsehood; - to join a malicious charge to a person. Thus, in Psalm 119:69, “The proud have “forged a lie” ( טפלו שקר taphalo sheqer ) against me,” that is, they have joined a lie to me, or devised this story about me. So in Job 13:4, “Ye are forgers of lies.” The word does not occur elsewhere. The Greeks have a similar expression in the phrase ραπτειν επη raptein epe - from where the word ραψωδος rapsodos The word here, it seems to me, is used in the sense of sewing up money in a bag, as well as sealing it. This is done when there are large sums, to avoid the inconvenience of counting it. The sum is marked on the bag, and a seal affixed to it to authenticate it, and it is thus passed from one to another without the trouble of counting. If a seal is placed on the bag, it will circulate for its assigned value, without being opened for examination. It is usual now in the East for a bag to contain five hundred piastres, and hence, such a sum is called “a purse,” and amounts are calculated by so many “purses;” see Harmer, ii. 285, Chardin, and Pict. Bible in loc. The sense here is, that God had carefully numbered his sins, and marked them, and meant that none of them should escape. He regarded them as very great. They could now be referred to in the gross, without the trouble of casting up the amount again. The sins of a man‘s past life are summed up and marked with reference to the future judgment.

Verse 18

And surely the mountain falling - Margin, “Fadeth.” The sense of this is, that the hope of man in regard to living again, must certainly fail - as a mountain falls and does not rise again; as the rock is removed, and is not replaced; or as the waters wear away the stones, and they disappear. The hope of dying man was not like the tree that would spring up again Job 14:7-9; it was like the falling mountain, the wasting waters Job 14:11, the rock that was removed. The reference in the phrase before us is, probably, to a mountain that settles down and disappears - as is sometimes the case in violent convulsions of nature. It does not rise again, but is gone to reappear no more. So Job says it was of man.And the rock is removed - An earthquake shakes it, and removes it from its foundation, and it is not replaced.

Verse 19The waters wear the stones - By their constant attrition they wear away even the hard rocks, and they disappear, and return no more. The sense is, that constant changes are going on in nature, and man resembles those objects which are removed to appear no more, and not the productions of the vegetable world that spring up again. It is possible that there may also be included the idea here, that the patience, constancy, firmness, and life of any man must be worn out by long continued trials, as even hard rocks would be worn away by the constant attrition of waters.Thou washest away - Margin, “Overflowest.” This is literally the meaning of the Hebrew תשטף tıshataph But there is included the sense of washing away by the inundation.The things which grow out of the dust of the earth - Herder and Noyes translate this, “the floods overflow the dust of the earth,” and this accords with the interpretation of Good and Rosenmuller. So Castellio renders it, and so Luther - “Tropfen flossen die Erde weg.” This is probably the true sense. The Hebrew word rendered “the things which grow out” ספיח saphıyach means properly that which “is poured out” - from saphach to pour out, to spread out - and is ספח applied to grain produced spontaneously from kernels of the former year, without new seed. Leviticus 25:5-11; 2 Kings 19:29 . See the notes at Isaiah 37:30. But here it probably means a flood - that which flows out - and which washes away the earth.

The dust of the earth - The earth or the land on the margin of streams. The sense is, that as a flood sweeps away the soil, so the hope of man was destroyed.Thou destroyest the hope of man - By death - for so the connection demands. It is the language of despondency. The tree would spring up, but man would die like a removed rock, like land washed away, like a falling mountain, and would revive no more. If Job had at times a hope of a future state, yet that hope seems at times, also, wholly to fail him, and he sinks down in utter despondency. At best, his views of the future world were dark and obscure. He seems to have had at no time clear conceptions of heaven - of the future holiness and blessedness of the righteous; but he anticipated, at best, only a residence in the world of disembodied spirits - dark, dreary, sad; - a world to which the grave was the entrance, and where the light was as darkness. With such anticipations, we are not to wonder that his mind sank into despondency; nor are we to be surprised at the expressions which he so often used, and which seem so inconsistent with the feelings which a child of God ought to cherish. In our trials let us imitate his patience, but not his despondency; let us copy his example in his better moments, and when he was full of confidence in God, and not his language of complaint, and his unhappy reflections on the government of the Most High.

Verse 20Thou prevailest forever against him - Thou dost always show that thou art stronger than he is. He never shows that he is able to contend with God.And he passeth - He cannot stand before thee, but is vanquished, and passes off the stage of being.Thou changest his countenance - Possibly the allusion is to the change produced by death. The countenance that glowed with health and was flushed with beauty and hope - blooming as the rose - is made pale as the lily under the hand of God. What an affecting exhibition of the power of God!And sendest him away - This language seems to be that of expectation that man would still live though he was sent away; but all his hopes on earth were blasted, and he went away from his friends and possessions to return no more.

Verse 21His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not - He is unacquainted with what is passing on the earth. Even should that occur which is most gratifying to a

parent‘s heart; should his children rise to stations of honor and influence, he would not be permitted to enjoy the happiness which every father feels when his sons do well. This is suggested as one of the evils of death.They are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them - He is not permitted to sympathize with them, or to sustain them in their trials. This is another of the evils of death. When his children need his counsel and advice, he is not permitted to give it. He is taken away from his family, and revisits them no more.

Verse 22But his flesh upon him shall have pain - Dr. Good renders this, “his flesh shall drop away from him.” This is evidently a representation of the state of the man after he was dead. He would be taken away from hope and from his friends. His body would be committed to the grave, and his spirit would go to the world of shades. The image in the mind seems to have been, that his flesh would suffer. It would be cold and chill, and would be devoured by worms. There seems to have been an impression that the soul would be conscious of this in its distant and silent abode, and the description is given of the grave as if the body were conscious there, and the turning back to dust were attended with pain. This thought is that which makes the grave so gloomy now. We think of ourselves in its darkness and chilliness. We insensibly suppose that we shall be conscious there. And hence, we dread so much the lonely, sad, and gloomy residence in the tomb. The meaning of the word rendered “shall have pain” - כאב ka'ab - is “to be sore, to be grieved, afflicted, sad.” It is by the imagination, that pain is here attributed to the dead body. But Job was not alone in this. We all feel the same thing when we think of death.And his soul within him shall mourn - The soul that is within him shall be sad; that is, in the land of shades. So Virgil, speaking of the death of Lausus, says,Tum vita per aurasConcessit moesta ad manes, corpusque reliquit.Aeneid x. 819.The idea of Job is, that it would leave all the comforts of this life; it would be separate from family and friends; it would go lonely and sad to the land of shades and of night. Job dreaded it. He loved life; and in the future world, as it was presented to his view, there was nothing to charm and attract. There he expected to wander in darkness and sadness; and from that gloomy world he expected to

return no more forever. Eichhorn, however, has rendered this verse so as to give a different signification, which may perhaps be the true one.Nur uber sich ist er betrubt;Nur sich betrauert er.“His troubles pertain only to himself; his grief relates to himself alone.” According to this, the idea is that he must bear all his sorrows alone, and for himself. He is cut off from the living, and is not permitted to share in the joys and sorrows of his posterity, nor they in his. He has no knowledge of anything that pertains to them, nor do they participate in his griefs. What a flood of light and joy would have been poured on his soul by the Christian hope, and by the revelation of the truth that there is a world of perfect light and joy for the righteous - in heaven! And what thanks do we owe to the Great Author of our religion - to him who is “the Resurrection and the Life “ - that we are permitted to look upon the grave with hearts full of peace and joy!

15 Chapter 15 Verse 2Should a wise man - Referring to Job, and to his claims to be esteemed wise; see Job 12:3; Job 13:2, Job 13:6. The argument of Eliphaz here is, that the sentiments which Job had advanced were a sufficient refutation of his pretensions to wisdom. A wise man would not be guilty of “mere talk,” or of using language that conveyed no ideas.Utter - literally, answer. It refers to the replies which Job had made to the arguments of his friends.Vain knowledge - Margin, “Knowledge of wind.” So the Hebrew; see Job 6:26; Job 7:7. The “wind” is used to denote what is unsubstantial, vain, changing. Here it is used as an emblem of remarks which were vain, empty, and irrelevant.And fill his belly - Fill his mind with unsubstantial arguments or sentiments - as little fitted for utility as the east wind is for food. The image is, “he fills himself with mere wind, and then blows it out under pretence of delivering the maxims of wisdom.”With the east wind - The east wind was not only tempestuous and vehement, but sultry, and destructive to vegetation. It passed over vast deserts, and was characterized by great dryness and heat. It is used here to denote a manner of discourse that had in it nothing profitable.

Verse 3Should he reason with unprofitable talk? - It does not become a man professing to be wise to make use of words that are nothing to the purpose. The sense is, that what Job said amounted to just nothing.

Verse 4Yea, thou castest off fear - Margin, Makest void. Fear here means the fear or reverence of God; and the idea is, that Job had not maintained a proper veneration or respect for his Maker in his argument. He had defended principles and made assertions which implied great disrespect for the Deity. If those doctrines were true; if he was right in his views about God, then he was not a being who could be reverenced. No confidence could be placed in his government; no worship of such a being could be maintained. Eliphaz does not refer here so much to what was personal with Job, as to his principles. He does not mean so much to affirm that he himself had lost all reverence for God, as that his arguments led to that. Job had maintained that God did not in this life reward and punish people strictly according to their deserts. If this was so, Eliphaz says, then it would be impossible to honor him, and religion and worship would be at an end.The Hebrew word rendered “castest off” - more accurately rendered in the margin “makest void” (תפר taper ) - implies this. “And restrainest prayer before God.” Margin, “speech.” The Hebrew word sıychah means שיחה properly “meditation” - and particularly meditation about divine things: Psalm 119:97. Then it means “devotion” - as to meditate on divine things is a part of devotion. It may be applied to any part of devotion, and seems to be not improperly rendered “prayer.” It is that devotion which finds utterance in the language of prayer. The word rendered “restrainest” - ;tıgara‛ - means to shave off - like the beard תגרע then to cut off, to take away, detract, withhold; and the idea here is, that the views which Job maintained were such as “to sap the very foundations of religion.” If God treated the righteous and the wicked alike, the one would have nothing to hope and the other nothing to fear.There could be no ground of encouragement, to pray to him. How could the righteous pray to him, unless there was evidence that he was the friend of virtue? How could they hope for his special blessing, if he were disposed to treat the good and the bad alike? Why was it not just as well to live in sin as to be holy? And how could such a being be the object of confidence or prayer? Eliphaz

mistook the meaning of Job, and pressed his positions further than he intended; and Job was not entirely able to vindicate his position, or to show how the consequences stated by Eliphaz could be avoided. “They both wanted the complete and full view of the future state of retribution revealed in the gospel, and that would have removed the whole difficulty.” But I see not how the considerations here urged by this ancient sage of the tendency of Job‘s doctrine can be avoided, if it be applied to the views of those who hold that all people will be saved at death. If that be the truth, then who can fail to see that the tendency must be to make people cast off the fear of God and to undermine all devotion and prayer? Why should people pray, if all are to be treated alike at death? How can people worship and honor a Being who will treat the good and the bad alike? How can we have confidence in a being who makes no distinction in regard to character? And what inducement can there be to be pious, when all people shall be made as happy as they can be forever whether they are pious or not? We are not to wonder, therefore, that the system tends every where to sap the foundations of virtue and religion; that it makes no man better; and that where it prevails, it banishes religion and prayer from the world.

Verse 5For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity - Margin, “teacheth.” That is, “your whole argument shows that you are a guilty man. A man who can defend such positions about God cannot be a pious man, or have any proper veneration for the Most High.” A man may pursue an argument, and defend positions, that shall as certainly show that he is destitute of religion as though he lived an abandoned life; and he who holds opinions that are dishonorable to God, can no more be a pious man than if he dishonored God by violating his law.Thou choosest the tongue of the crafty - Instead of pursuing an argument with candor and sincerity, you have resorted to miserable sophisms, such as running disputants use. You have not showed a disposition to ascertain and defend the truth, but have relied on the arts and evasions of the subtle disputant and the rhetorician. His whole discourse, according to Eliphaz, was a work of mere art, designed to blind his hearers; to deceive them with a favorable opinion of his piety; and to give some plausible, but delusive view of the government of God.

Verse 6

Thine own mouth condemneth thee - That is, the sentiments which you have uttered show that you cannot be a pious man.

Verse 7Art thou the first man that was born? - Hast thou lived ever since the creation, and treasured up all the wisdom of past times, that thou dost now speak so arrogantly and confidently? This question was asked, because, in the estimation of Eliphaz and his friends, wisdom was supposed to be connected with long life, and with an opportunity for extended and varied observation; see Job 15:10. Job they regarded as comparatively a young man.Wast thou made before the hills - The mountains and the hills are often represented as being the oldest of created objects, probably because they are the most ancient things that appear on earth. Springs dry up, and waters change their beds; cities are built and decay; kingdoms rise and fall, and all the monuments of human skill and art perish; but the hills and mountains remain the same from age to age. Thus, in Psalm 90:2:Before the mountains were brought forth,Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,Even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.So in Proverbs 8:25, in the description of wisdom:Before the mountains were settled,Before the hills was I brought forth.So the hills are called “everlasting” Genesis 49:26, in allusion to their great antiquity and permanence. And so we, in common parlance, have a similar expression when we say of anything that “it is as old as the hills.” The question which Eliphaz intends to ask here of Job is, whether he had lived from the creation, and had observed everything?

Verse 8Hast thou heard the secret of God? - literally, “in the secret of God hast thou heard” - means properly a ( sod סוד) ”hasod The word rendered “secret הסוד “couch” or “cushion,” on which one reclines - whether for sleep or at a table, or as a divan. Hence, it means a divan, or circle of persons sitting together for familiar conversation, Jeremiah 6:11; Jeremiah 15:17; or of judges, counsellors, or advisers for consultation, as the word “divan” is now used in Oriental countries; Psalm 89:7; Jeremiah 33:18. Then it means any consultation, counsel, familiar

conversation, or intimacy; Psalm 55:14; Proverbs 15:22. Here God is represented in Oriental language as seated in a “divan,” or council of state: there is deliberation about the concerns of his government; important questions are agitated and decided; and Eliphaz asks of Job whether he had been admitted to that council, and had heard those deliberations; and whether, if he had not, he was qualified to pronounce as he had done, on the plans and purposes of the Almighty.And dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself? - Having obtained the secret of that council, art thou now keeping it wholly to thyself - as a prime minister might be supposed to keep the purposes resolved on in the divan? “Hast thou listened in the council of yahweh, and dost thou now reserve all wisdom to thyself?”

Verse 9What knowest thou that we know not? - What pretensions or claims to wisdom have you which we have not? We have had, at least, equal advantages, and may be presumed to know as much as you.

Verse 10With us are both the gray headed - That is, some of us who are here are much older than thy father; or we express the sentiments of such aged men. Job had admitted Job 12:12, that with the aged was wisdom, and in length of days understanding; and Eliphaz here urges that on that principle he and his friends had a claim to be heard. It would seem from this, that Job was very far from being regarded as an old man, and would probably be esteemed as in middle life. The Targum (Chaldee) refers this to Eliphaz himself and his two friends. “Truly Eliphaz, who is hoary-headed (דסיב ) and Bildad, the long-lived (דקשיש ) are with us, and Zophar, who is older than thy father.” But it is not certain that he meant to confine the remark to them. It seems to me probable that this whole discussion occurred in the presence of others, and perhaps was a public contest. It is clear, I think, that Elihu was present, and heard it all (see Job 32:4), and it would accord well with Oriental habits to suppose that this was a trim of skill, which many were permitted to witness, and which was continued for a considerable time. Eliphaz may, therefore, have meant to say that among his friends who had assembled to hear this debate, there were not a few who coincided with him in sentiment, who were much more aged than Job, and who had had much longer experience in the world.

Verse 11Are the consolations of God small with thee? - The “consolations of God” here refer probably to those considerations which had been suggested by Eliphaz and his friends, and which he takes to be the “consolations” which God had furnished for the afflicted. He asks whether they were regarded by Job as of little value? Whether he was not willing to take such consolations as God had provided, and to allow them to sustain him instead of permitting himself to inveigh against God? The Septuagint renders this, “thou hast been chastised less than thy sins deserve. Thou hast spoken with excessive haughtiness!” But the true idea seems to be, that Eliphaz regarded the considerations adduced by him and his friends, as the gracious consolations which God had provided for people in affliction, and as the results of all former reflections on the design of God in sending trial. He now represents Job as regarding them as of no value, and maintaining sentiments directly at variance with them. “Is there any secret thing with thee?”Noyes renders this,” and words so full of kindness to thee,” that is, are they of no account to you? So Dr. Good and Wemyss, “or the addresses of kindness to thyself?” Luther translates it, “but thou hast, perhaps, yet a secret portion with thee.” Rosenmuller, “and words most guilty spoken toward thee.” The Septuagint renders it, “and thou hast spoken proudly beyond measure” - μεγαλως υπερβαλλοντας λελαηκας megalos huperballontas lelalekas The word which occurs in the Hebrew - ,la'at when it is a single word, and used as a verb לאט means to wrap around, to muffle, to cover, to conceal, and then to be “secret” - whence the Greek: λαφω latho and λανθανω lanthano and the Latin: lateo. In this sense it is understood here by our translators. But it may be also a compound word - from - at' אט a gentle sound, murmur, whisper; from where it is used adverbially - לאט le'at and לאט la'at - gently, softly, slowly - as of the slow gait of a mourner, 1 Kings 21:27 ; and of water gently flowing, as the water of Siloam, Isaiah 8:6. And hence, also, it may refer to words flowing kindly or gently toward anyone; and this seems to be the meaning here. Eliphaz asks whether Job could despise or undervalue the words spoken so gently and kindly toward him? A singular illustration, to be sure, of kindness, but still showing how the friends of Job estimated their own remarks.

Verse 12

Why doth thine heart carry thee away? - Why do you allow your feelings to control you in spite of the decisions of the understanding? Eliphaz means to represent him as wholly under the influence of passion, instead of looking calmly and cooly at things as they were, and listening to the results of past experience and observation.And what do thy eyes wink at - This expression has given considerable perplexity to commentators. Rosenmuller (and after him Noyes) remarks that the expression indicates pride, haughtiness, and arrogance. In Psalm 35:19, it is an indication of joyfulness or triumph over a prostrate foe:Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me;Neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.In Proverbs 6:13, it is an indication of a haughty, froward, self-confident person:A haughty person, a wicked man,Walketh with a froward mouth;He winketh with his eyes,He speaketh with his feet,He teacheth with his fingers.The Hebrew word (רזם razam ) occurs nowhere else, and it is therefore difficult to determine its true signification. The most probable meaning is, to wink with the eyes as a gesture of pride and insolence; compare the notes at Isaiah 3:16. The Vulgate renders it, attonitos habes oculos? - “Why, as though meditating great things, hast thou eyes of astonishment?” Septuagint, “Why are thine eyes elevated?” Schultens renders it, “Why do thine eyes roll fury?” - Quid fremitum volvunt oculi tui? Luther, “Why art thou so proud? There can be no reasonable doubt that the word conveys the idea of pride and haughtiness manifested in some way by the eyes.

Verse 13That thou turnest thy spirit - That your mind is turned against God instead of acquiescing in his dealings. The views of Job he traces to pride and to overweening self-confidence, and perhaps not improperly.

Verse 14What is man that he should be clean? - The object of Eliphaz in this is to overturn the positions of Job that he was righteous, and had been punished beyond his deserts. He had before maintained Job 4:7, that no one ever perished

being innocent, and that the righteous were not cut off. This was with him a favorite position; and indeed the whole drift of the argument maintained by him and his friends was, to prove that uncommon calamities were proof of uncommon guilt. Job had insisted on it that he was a righteous man, and had not deserved the calamities which had come upon him - a position which Eliphaz seems to have regarded as an assertion of innocence. To meet this he now maintains that no one is righteous; that all that are born of women are guilty; and in proof of this he goes back to the oracle which had made so deep an impression on his mind, and to the declaration then made to him that no one was pure before God; Job 4: He does not repeat it exactly as the oracle was then delivered to him, but adverts to the substance of it, and regards it as final and indisputable. The meaning is, “What are all the pretensions of man to purity, when even the angels are regarded as impure and the heavens unclean?”He which is born of a woman - Another mode of denoting man. No particular argument to maintain the doctrine of man‘s depravity is couched in the fact that he is born of a woman. The sense is, simply, how can anyone of the human family be pure?

Verse 15Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints - In Job 4:18, it is, “in his servants,” but no doubt the same thing is intended. The reference is to the angels, called there servants, and here saints qodeshıym holy ones; see the notes at קדשים Job 4:18.Yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight - In Job 4:18, “and his angels he charged with folly.” The general idea is the same. God is so holy that all things else seem to be impure. The very heavens seem to be unclean when compared with him. We are not to understand this as meaning that the heavens are defiled; that there is sin and corruption there, and that they are loathsome in the sight of God. The object is to set forth the exceeding purity of God, and the greatness of his holiness. This sentiment seemed to be a kind of proverb, or a commonplace in theology among the sages of Arabia. Thus, it occurs in Job 25:5, in the speech of Bildad, when he had nothing to say but to repeat the most common-place moral and theological adages - Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not;Yea, the stars are not pure in his sight:How much less man, that is a worm,

And the son of man, which is a worm!

Verse 16How much more abominable and filthy is man - How much more than the angels, and than the heavens. In Job 4:19, the image is somewhat different. There it is, how can man be the object of the divine confidence since he lives in a house of clay, and is so frail? Here the image is more striking and forcible. The word rendered filthy (אלח 'alach ) means, in Arabic, to be sour, as milk, and then to be corrupt, in a moral sense; Psalm 14:3; Psalm 53:4. Here it means that man is defiled and polluted, and this declaration is a remarkable illustration of the ancient belief of the depravity of man.Which drinketh iniquity like water - This is still a true, though a melancholy account of man. He loves sin, and is as greedy of it as a thirsty man is of water. He practices it as if it were his very nature - as much so as it is to drink. Perhaps too there may be an allusion, as Dr. Good supposes, to the large draught of water which the camel makes, implying that man is exceedingly greedy of iniquity; compare Job 20:12; Job 34:7; Proverbs 19:28.

Verse 17I will show thee … - The remainder of this chapter is a violent declamation, designed to overwhelm Job with the proofs of personal guilt. Eliphaz professes to urge nothing which had not been handed down from his ancestors, and was the result of careful observation. What he says is made up of apothegms and maxims that were regarded as containing the results of ancient wisdom, all meaning that God would punish the wicked, or that the wicked would be treated according to their deserts. The implied inference all along was, that Job, who had had so many proofs of the divine displeasure, must be a wicked man.

Verse 18Which wise men have told from their fathers - Which they have received from their ancestors and communicated to others. Knowledge among the ancients was communicated chiefly by tradition from father to son. They had few or no written records, and hence, they embodied the results of their observation in brief, sententious maxims, and transmitted them from one generation to another.And have not hid it - They have freely communicated the result of their observations to others.

Verse 19Unto whom alone the earth was given - The land; the land or country where they dwelt. He refers to the period before they became intermingled with other nations, and before they imbibed any sentiments or opinions from strangers. The meaning is, “I will give you the result of the observations of the golden age of the world when our fathers dwelt alone, and it could not be pretended that they had been corrupted by foreign philosophy; and when in morals and in sentiment they were pure.” Probably all nations look back to such times of primeval simplicity, and freedom from corruption, when the sentiments on morals and religion were comparatively pure, and before the people became corrupt by the importation of foreign opinions. It is a pleasing delusion to look back to such times - to some innocent Arcadia, or to a golden age - but usually all such retrospections are the mere work of fancy. The world really grows wiser as it grows older; and in the progress of society it is a rare thing when the present is not more pure and happy than its early stages. The comforts, privileges, and intelligence of the patriarchal age were not to be compared with those which we enjoy - any more than the condition of the wandering Arab is to be preferred to the quiet, peace, intelligence, and order of a calm, Christian home.No stranger passed among them - No foreigner came to corrupt their sentiments by an admixture of strange doctrines. “Eliphaz here speaks like a genuine Arab, whose pride is in his tongue, his sword, and his pure blood.” Umbreit. It is possible, as Rosenmuller suggests, that Eliphaz means to insinuate that Job had been corrupted by the sentiments of the Chaldeans and Sabeans, and had departed from the pure doctrines of earlier times.

Verse 20Travaileth with pain - That is, his sorrows are like the pains of parturition. Eliphaz means to say that he is a constant sufferer.All his days - It seems difficult to see how they could have ever formed this universal maxim. It is certainly not literally true now; nor was it ever. But in order to convey the doctrine that the wicked would be punished in as pointed and striking a manner as possible, it was made to assume this universal form - meaning that the life of the wicked would be miserable. There is some reason to think that this and what follows to the close of the chapter, is an ancient fragment

which Eliphaz rehearses as containing the sentiments of a purer age of the world.And the number of years is hidden to the oppressor - Wemyss renders this, “and a reckoning of years is laid up for the violent.” So, also, Dr. Good. The Vulgate renders it, “and the number of the years of his tyranny is uncertain.” Rosenmuller, Cocceius, Drusius, and some others suppose that there should be understood here and repeated the clause occurring in the first hemistich, and that it means, “and in the number of years which are laid up for the violent man, he is tortured with pain.” Luther renders it, “and to a tyrant is the number of his years concealed.” It is difficult to tell what the passage means. To me, the most probable interpretation is one which I have not met with in any of the books which I have consulted, and which may be thus expressed,” the wicked man will be tormented all his days.” To one who is an oppressor or tyrant, the number of his years is hidden. He has no security of life. He cannot calculate with any certainty on its continuance. The end is hid. A righteous man may make some calculation, and can see the probable end of his days. He may expect to see an honored old age. But tyrants are so often cut down suddenly; they so frequently perish by assassination, and robbers are so often unexpectedly overcome, that there is no calculation which can be formed in respect to the termination of their course. Their end is hid. They die suddenly and disappear. This suits the connection; and the sentiment is, in the main, in accordance with facts as they occur.

Verse 21A dreadful sound is in his ears - Margin, “A sound of fears.” He hears sudden, frightful sounds, and is alarmed. Or when he thinks himself safe, he is suddenly surprised. The enemy steals upon him, and in his fancied security he dies. This sentiment might be illustrated at almost any length by the mode of savage warfare in America, and by the sudden attacks which the American savage makes, in the silence of the night, on his unsuspecting foes. The Chaldee renders this, “the fear of the terrors in Gehenna are in his ears; when the righteous dwell in peace and eternal life, destruction comes upon him.”In prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him - When he supposes he is safe, and his affairs seem to be prosperous, then sudden destruction comes; see 1 Thessalonians 5:3 . The history of wicked people, who have encompassed themselves with wealth, and as they supposed with every thing necessary to happiness, and who have been suddenly cut off, would furnish all the instances

which would be necessary to illustrate this sentiment of Eliphaz. See an exquisitely beautiful illustration of it in Psalm 37:35-36:I have seen the wicked in great power,And spreading himself like a green bay-tree.Yet he passed away, and lo he was not;Yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.So, also, in Psalm 73:18-20:Surely thou didst set them in slippery places;Thou castedst them down into destruction.How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!They are utterly consumed with terrors.As a dream when one awaketh,O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Verse 22He believeth not that he shall return out of darkness - Darkness is used in the Bible, as elsewhere, to denote calamity; and the meaning here is, that the wicked man has not confidence ( לא יאמין lo' ya'amıyn ), that he shall return safely from impending danger. He is in constant dread of assassination, or of some fearful evil. He is never secure; his mind is never calm; he lives in constant dread. This is still an accurate description of a man with a guilty conscience; for such a man lives in constant fear, and never feels any security that he is safe.And he is waited for of the sword - That is, he is destined for the sword. Gesenius.

Verse 23He wandereth abroad for bread - The Septuagint renders this, “he is destined to be food for vultures” - κατατετακται δε εις σιτα γυψιν katatetaktai de eis sitos gupsin The meaning of the Hebrew is, simply, that he will be reduced to poverty, and will not know where to obtain a supply for his returning needs.He knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand - He is assured that the period of calamity is not far remote. It must come. He has no security that it will not come immediately. The whole design of this is to show that there is no calmness and security for a wicked man; that in the midst of apparent prosperity his soul is in constant dread.

Verse 24As a king ready to the battle - Fully prepared for a battle; whom it would be vain to attempt to resist. So mighty would be the combined forces of trouble and anguish against him, that it would be vain to attempt to oppose them.

Verse 25For he stretcheth out his hand against God - The hand is stretched out for battle. It wields the spear or the sword against an enemy. The idea here is, that the wicked man makes God an adversary. He does not contend with his fellow-man, with fate, with the elements, with evil angels, but with God. His opponent is an Almighty Being, and he cannot prevail against him; compare the notes at Isaiah 27:4.And strengtheneth himself - As an army does that throws up a rampart, or constructs a fortification. The whole image here is taken from the practice of war; and the sense is, that a wicked man is really making war on the Almighty, and that in that war he must be vanquished; compare Job 9:4.

Verse 26He runneth upon him - That is, upon God. The image here is taken from the mode in which people rushed into battle. It was with a violent concussion, and usually with a shout, that they might intimidate their foes, and overcome them at first, with the violence of the shock. The mode of warfare is now changed, and it is the vaunted excellency of modern warfare that armies now go deliberately and calmly to put each other to death.Even “on his neck - literally, “with the neck” - betsava'r Vulgate, “With בצואר erect neck - erecto collo.” Septuagint, contemptuously, or with pride - υβρει hubrei The idea seems to be, not that he ran “upon the neck” of his adversary - as would seem to be implied in our translation - but that he ran in a firm, haughty, confident manner; with a head erect and firm, as the indication of self confidence, and a determined purpose to overcome his foe. See Schultens in loc.Upon the thick bosses - The word boss with us means a knob - a protuberant ornament of silver, brass, or ivory on a harness or a bridle; then a protuberant part, a prominence, or a round or swelling body of any kind. The Hebrew word used here ( gab גב) means properly anything gibbous, convex, arched; and hence, “the back” - as of animals. Applied to a shield, it means the convex part or the back of it - the part which was presented to an enemy, and which was made

swelling and strong, called by the Greeks ομφαλος omfalos or μεσομφαλιον mesomfalion Gesenius supposes that the metaphor here is taken from soldiers, who joined their shields together, and thus rushed upon an enemy. This was one mode of ancient warfare, when an army or a phalanx united their shields in front, so that nothing could penetrate them, or so united them over their heads when approaching a fortress, that they could safely march under them as a covering.This, among the Romans and Greeks, was commonly practiced when approaching a besieged town. One form of the testudo - the χελωη στρατιωτων chelone stratioton of the Greeks, was formed by the soldiers, pressed close together and holding their shields over their heads in such a manner as to form a compact covering. John H. Eschenburg, Manual of Classical Literature. by N. W. Fiske, pt. III, section 147. The Vulgate renders this, “and he is armed with a fat neck” - pingui cervice armatus est. Schultens expresses the idea that is adopted by Gesenius, and refers to Arabic customs to show that shields were thus united in defending an army from a foe, or in making an attack on them. He says, also, that it is a common expression - a proverb - among the Arabs, “he turns the back of his shield” to denote that one is an adversary; and quotes a passage from Hamasa, “When a friend meets me with base suspicions, I turn to him the back of my shield - a proverb, whose origin is derived from the fact, that a warrior turns the back of his shield to his foes.”Paxton supposes that the expression here is taken from single combat, which early prevailed. But the idea here is not that which our translation would seem to convey. It is not that he rushes upon or against the hard or thick shield “of the Almighty” - and that, therefore, he must meet resistance and be overcome: it is that he rushes upon God with his own shield. He puts himself in the attitude of a warrior. He turns the boss of his own shield against God, and becomes his antagonist. He is his enemy. The omission of the word “with” in the passage - or the preposition which is in the Hebrew (ב b ) has led to this erroneous translation. The passage is often quoted in a popular manner to denote that the sinner rushes upon God, “and must meet resistance” from his shield, or be overcome. It should be quoted only to denote that the sinner places himself in an attitude of opposition to God, and is his enemy.Of his bucklers - Of his shields (מגניו megınay ), that is, of the shields which the sinner has; not the shields of God. The shield was a well-known instrument of war, usually made with a rim of wood or metal, and covered with skins, and carried on the left arm; see the notes at Isaiah 21:5. The outer surface was made

rounding from the center to the edge, and was smoothly polished, so that darts or arrows would glide off and not penetrate.

Verse 27Because he covereth his face with his fatness - That is, he not only stretches out his hand against God Job 15:25 and rushes upon him as an armed foe Job 15:26, but he gives himself up to a life of luxury, gluttony, and licentiousness; and therefore, these calamities must come upon him. This is designed to be a description of a luxurious and licentious person - a man who is an enemy of God, and who, therefore, must incur his displeasure.And maketh collops of fat - Like an ox that is fattened. The word collop properly means “a small slice of meat, a piece of flesh” (Webster), but here it means a thick piece, or a mass. The word is used in this sense in New England. The sense is, that he becomes excessively fat and gross - as they usually do who live in sensual indulgence and who forget God.

Verse 28And he dwelleth - Or rather, “therefore he shall dwell.” As a consequence of his opposing God, and devoting himself to a life of sensuality and ease, he shall dwell in a desolate place. Instead of living in affluence and in a splendid city, he shall be compelled to take up his abode in places that have been deserted and abandoned. Such places - like Petra or Babylon now - became the temporary lodgings of caravans and travelers, or the abodes of outcasts and robbers. The meaning here is, that the proud and wicked man shall be ejected from his palace, and compelled to seek a refuge far away from the usual haunts of men.Which are ready to become heaps - Which are just ready to tumble into ruin.

Verse 29He shall not be rich - That is, he shall not continue rich; or he shall not again become rich. He shall be permanently poor.Neither shall his substance continue - His property.Neither shall he prolong the perfection thereof - Noyes renders this, “And his possessions shall not be extended upon the earth.” Wemyss, “Nor shall he be master of his own desires.” Good, “Nor their success spread abroad in the land.” Luther, Und sein Gluck wird sich nicht ausbreiten im Lande- “ And his fortune shall not spread itself abroad in the land.” Vulgate, “Neither shall he send his root

in the earth “ - nec mittet in terra radicem suam. The Septuagint, ου μη βαλη επι την γην σκιαν ou me bale epi ten gon skian - “and shall not cast a shadow upon the earth.” The word rendered “perfection” ( mınlam מנלם) is commonly supposed to be from mınleh from מנלה nalah to נלה finish, to procure, and hence, the noun may be applied to that which is procured - and thus may denote possessions. According to this the correct rendering is, “and he does not extend their possessions abroad in the land;” that is, his possessions do not extend abroad. Gesenius supposes, however, that the word is a corruption for - מבלם “their flocks.” I see no objection, however, to its being regarded as meaning possessions - and then the sense is, that he would fail in that which is so much the object of ambition with every avaricious man - that his possessions should extend through the land; compare the notes at Isaiah 5:8.

Verse 30He shall not depart out of darkness - He shall not escape from calamity; see Job 15:22. He shall not be able to rise again, but shall be continually poor.The flame shall dry up his branches - As the fire consumes the green branches of a tree, so shall punishment do to him. This comparison is very forcible, and the idea is, that the man who has been prospered as a tree shall be consumed - as the fire consumes a tree when it passes through the branches. The comparison of a prosperous man with a tree is very common, and very beautiful. Thus, the Psalmist says,I have seen the wicked in great power,And spreading himself like a green bay tree. Psalm 37:35.Compare Psalm 92:12-13. The aged Skenandoah - a chief of the Oneida tribe of Indians, said,” I am an aged hemlock. The winds of an hundred winters have whistled through my branches. I am dead at the top. My branches are falling,” etc.And by the breath of his mouth shall he go away - That is, by the breath of the mouth of God. God is not indeed specified, but it is not unusual to speak of him in this manner. The image here seems to be that of the destruction of a man by a burning wind or by lightning. As a tree is dried up, or is rent by lightning, or is torn up from the roots by a tempest sent by the Deity, so the wicked will be destroyed.

Verse 31

Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity - The sense is, “Let him not trust in vanity. He will be deceived. Vanity will be his recompense.” The idea is, that a man should not confide in that which will furnish no support. He should not rely on his wealth and rank; his houses and lands; his servants, his armies, or his power, if he is wicked, for all this is vain. He needs some better reliance, and that can be found only in a righteous life. The word vanity here means that which is unsubstantial; which cannot uphold or sustain; which will certainly give way.For vanity will be his recompense - He will find only vanity. He will be stripped of all his honors and possessions.

Verse 32It shall be accomplished before his time - Margin, “cut off.” The image here is that of a tree, which had been suggested in Job 15:30. Here it is followed up by various illustrations drawn from the flower, the fruit, etc., all of which are designed to denote the same thing - that a wicked man will not be permanently prosperous; he will not live and flourish as he would if he were righteous. He will be like a tree that is cut down before its proper time, or that casts its flowers and fruits and brings nothing to perfection. The phrase here literally is, “It shall not be filled up in its time;” that is, a wicked man will be cut off before he has filled up the measure of his days, like a tree that decays and falls before its proper time. A similar idea occurs in Psalm 55:23. “Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days.” As a general fact this is all true, and the observation of the ancient Idumeans was correct. The temperate live longer than the intemperate; the chaste longer than the licentious; he that controls and governs his passions longer than he who gives the reins to them; and he who leads a life of honesty and virtue longer than he who lives for crime. Pure religion makes a man temperate, sober, chaste, calm, dispassionate, and equable in his temper; saves from broils, contentions, and strifes; subdues the angry passions, and thus tends to lengthen out life.His branch shall not be green - It shall be dried up and withered away - retaining the image of a tree.

Verse 33He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine - The idea here is, that the wicked man shall be like a vine that casts off its grapes while they are yet sour

and green, and brings none to perfection; compare the notes at Isaiah 18:5. Scott renders this,“As when the vine her half-grown berries showers,Or poisoned olive her unfolding flowers.”It would seem from this passage that the vine might be so blasted by a hot wind or other cause, as to cast its unripe grapes to the earth. The employment of a figure of this kind to illustrate an idea supposes that such a case was familiar to those who were addressed. It is well known that in the East the grape and the olive might be blasted while in blossom, or when the fruit was setting, as all fruit may be. The injury is usually done in the flower, or when the fruit is just forming. Yet our observations of the effects of the burning winds that pass over the deserts on fruit that is half formed, in blasting it and causing it to fall, are too limited to allow us to come to any definite conclusion in regard to such effects in general. Anyone, however, can see the beauty of this image. The plans and purposes of wicked people are immature. Nothing is carried to perfection. They are cut off, their plans are blasted, and all the results of their living are like the sour, hard, crabbed, and useless fruit that falls from the tree before it is ripe. The results of the life of the righteous, on the other hand, are like a tree loaded with ripe and mellow fruit - their plans are brought to maturity, and resemble the rich and heavy clusters of grapes, or the abundant fruits of the olive when ripe.And shall cast off his flower as the olive - The olive is a well-known tree that abounds in the East. The fruit is chiefly valuable for the oil which it produces; compare the notes at Romans 11:17. The olive is liable to be blasted while the fruit is setting, or while the tree is in blossom. In Greece, a northeast wind often proves destructive to the olive, and the same may be true of other places. Dr. Chandler speaking of Greece, says, “The olive groves are now, as anciently, a principal source of the riches of Athens. The crops had failed five years successively when we arrived; the cause assigned was a northerly wind, called Greco-tramontane, which destroyed the flower. The fruit is set in about a fortnight, when the apprehension from this unpropitious quarter ceases. The bloom in the following year was unhurt, and we had the pleasure of leaving the Athenians happy in the prospect of a plentiful harvest.” A wicked man is here elegantly compared with such a tree that casts its flowers and produces no fruit.

Verse 34

For the congregation of hypocrites - The word rendered “congregation” here (( edah‛ עדה means properly an appointed meeting; a meeting convened by appointment or at stated times (from ידה yadah ), and hence, an assembly of any kind. It is commonly applied to an assembly for public worship; but it may refer to a more private company - a family, or circle of friends, dependents, etc. It refers here, I suppose, to such a community that a man can get around him in his own dwelling - his family, servants, dependents, etc. The word rendered “hypocrites” ( chaneph ) is in the singular number, and should be so rendered here. It does חנףnot mean that a worshipping assembly composed of hypocrites would be desolate - which may be true - but that the community which a man who is a hypocrite can gather around him shall be swept away. His children, his dependents, and his retinue of servants, shall be taken away from him, and he shall be left to solitude. Probably there was an allusion here to Job, who had been stripped in this manner; or at any rate the remark was one, if it were a quotation from the ancient sayings of the Arabians, which Job could not but regard as applied to himself.And fire shall consume - This has all the appearance of being a proverb. The meaning is, that they who received a bribe would be certainly punished.The tabernacles of bribery - The tents or dwellings of those who receive bribes, and who therefore are easily corrupted, and have no solid principles. There is probably an allusion here to Job; and no doubt Eliphaz meant to apply this severe remark to him. Job was a Sheik, an Emir, a head of a tribe, and, therefore, a magistrate; see Job 29:7, seq. Yet a part of his possessions and servants had been cut off by fire from heaven Job 1:16; and Eliphaz means probably to imply that it had been because he had been guilty of receiving a bribe. This ancient proverb declared that the dwellings of the man who could be bribed would be consumed by fire; and now he presumes that the fact that Job had been visited by the fire of heaven was full proof that he had been guilty in this manner. It was about on principles such as these that the reasoning of the friends of Job was conducted.

Verse 35They conceive mischief - The meaning of this verse is, that they form and execute plans of evil. It is the characteristic of such men that they form such plans and live to execute them, and they must abide the consequences. All this was evidently meant for Job; and few things could be more trying to a man‘s

patience than to sit and hear those ancient apothegms, designed to describe the wicked, applied so unfeelingly to himself.

16 Chapter 16 Verse 2Many such things - That is, either things fitted to provoke and irritate, or sentiments that are common-place. There was nothing new in what they said, and nothing to the purpose.Miserable comforters - Compare Job 13:4. They had come professedly to condole with him. Now all that they said was adapted only to irritate, and to deepen his distress. He was disappointed; and he was deeply wounded and grieved.

Verse 3Shall vain words? - Margin, As in Hebrew words of wind; that is, words which were devoid of thought-light, trifling. This is a retort on Eliphaz. He had charged Job Job 15:2-3 with uttering only such words. Such forms of expression are common in the East. “His promise, it is only wind.” “Breath, breath: all breath.” Roberts.Or what emboldeneth thee? - “What provokes or irritates thee, that thou dost answer in this manner? What have I said, that has given occasion to such a speech - a speech so severe and unkind?” The Syriac reads this, “do not afflict me any more with speeches; for if you speak any more, I will not answer you.”

Verse 4I also could speak as ye do - In the same reproachful manner, and stringing together old proverbs and maxims as you have.If your soul were in my soul‘s stead - If you were in my place. The idea is, that there is no difficulty in finding arguments to overwhelm the afflicted - a truth which most persons who have been unfortunate, have had opportunity to experience.I could heap up words against you - Or, rather, “I could string together words against you.” The idea is not that of heaping up, or accumulating; it is that of tying together, or uniting; and refers here to stringing together old maxims, saws, and proverbs, in the form of a set argument or discourse. The idea of Job is, that their discourses were nothing but ancient proverbs, thrown together, or strung along

without regard to order, pertinency, or force. The Hebrew word used here (חבר chabar ) means to bind, to bind together, to associate, to be confederate. It may be applied to friends - united in friendship; to nations - united in an alliance, etc. Gesenius supposes that it means here that he “would make a league with words against them;” but the above seems to be the more probable interpretation. The Septuagint renders it, “then I could insult you - εναλουμαι enaloumai - with words.” Jerome (Vulgate) “I would console you with words, and move my head over you.” The Chaldee is as the Hebrew - .chabar Dr חבר Good renders it, “against you will I string together old sayings.”And shake mine head at you - An action common to all countries and ages, expressive of contempt, or of threatening; compare Jeremiah 18:16; Lamentations 2:15; Zephaniah 2:15; Matthew 27:39. So Lucretius ii. 1163:Jamque caput quassans grandis suspirat araratCrebrius incassum magnum cecidisse laborem.In like manner Virgil, Aeneid xii. 292:Tum quassanos caput, haec effudit pectore dicta.So, also, Homer, Odyssey ε e Κινησας δε καρη προτι ον μυθησατο Θυμον. Kinesas de kare proti hon muthesato thumon meaning of Job here is, that be could as easily have expressed contempt, reproach, and scorn, as they did. It required no uncommon talent to do it, and he felt that he would have been fully sufficient for the task.

Verse 5(But I would strengthen you with my mouth With that which proceeds from the mouth - words.And the moving of my lips - My speaking - implying that it would have been done in a mild, gentle, kind manner - so that the lips would appear just to move. Others, however, have given a different interpretation. Thus, Dr. Good renders it:“With my own mouth will I overpower you,Till the quivering of my lips shall fall.”But the common interpretation is to be preferred. The word rendered “moving” ניד nıyd is from - nud נוד “to move,” “agitate,” and hence, denotes “motion.” It denotes here the motion of the lips when we speak. Gesenius renders it, “consolation,” “comfort” - because this is expressed by a motion of the head.Should assuage your grief - The word used here (יחשך yachasak ) means properly “to hold back,” “to restrain;” Job 7:11. Here it is correctly rendered,

meaning that he would hold back, or check their sorrows. In other words, he would sustain them.

Verse 6Though I speak, my grief is not assuaged - “But for me, it makes now no difference whether I speak or am silent. My sufferings continue. If I attempt to vindicate myself before people, I am reproached; and equally so if I am silent. If I maintain my cause before God, it avails me nothing, for my sufferings continue. If I am silent, and submit without a complaint, they are the same. Neither silence, nor argument, nor entreaty, avail me before God or man. I am doomed to suffering.”What am I eased? - Margin. “Goeth from me.” Literally, “what goeth from me?” The sense is, that it all availed nothing.

Verse 7But now he hath made me weary - That is, God has exhausted my strength. This verse introduces a new description of his sufferings; and he begins with a statement of the woes that God had brought on him. The first was, that he had taken away all his strength.All my company - The word rendered “company” (עדה ‛edah ) means properly an assembly that comes together by appointment, or at stated times; but here it is evidently used in the sense of the little community of which Job was the head and father. The sense is, that all his family had been destroyed.

Verse 8And thou hast filled me with wrinkles - Noyes renders this, “and thou hast seized hold of me, which is a witness against me.” Wemyss, “since thou hast bound me with chains, witnesses come forward.” Good, “and hast cut off myself from becoming a witness.” Luther, “he has made me “kuntzlich” (skillfully, artificially, cunningly,) and bears witness against me.” Jerome, “my wrinkles bear witness against me.” Septuagint, “my lie has become a witness, and is risen up against me.” From this variety of explanations, it will be seen that this passage is not of easy and obvious construction. The Hebrew word which is here used and rendered, “thou hast filled me with wrinkles” (תקמטני tıqamatenıy ), from קמט qamat - occurs only in one other place in the Bible; Job 22:16. It is there in the

“Pual” form, and rendered “were cut down.” According to Gesenius, it means, to lay fast hold of, to seize with the hands, and answers to the Arabic “to bind.”The word in Chaldee (קמט qamat ) means to wrinkle, or collect in wrinkles; and is applied to anything that is “contracted,” or rough. It is applied in the form קימט qaymat to the pupil of the eye as being “contracted,” as in the declaration in Derek ‹Erets, c. 5, quoted by Castell. “The world is like the eye; where the ocean that surrounds the world is white; the world itself is black; the pupil is Jerusalem, and the image in the pupil is the sanctuary.” Probably the true notion of the word is to be found in the Arabic. According to Castell, this means, to tie together the four feet of a sheep or lamb, in order that it might be slain; to bind an infant in swaddling clothes before it is laid in a cradle; to collect camels into a group or herd; and hence, the noun is used to denote a cord or rope twisted of wool, or of leaves of the palm, or the bandages by which an infant is bound. This idea is not in use in the Hebrew; but I have no doubt that this was the original sense of the word, and that this is one of the numerous places in Job where light may be cast upon the meaning of a word from its use in Arabic. The Hebrew word may be applied to the “collecting” or “contraction” of the face in wrinkles by age, but this is not the sense here. We should express the idea by “being “drawn up” with pain or affliction; by being straitened, or compressed.” The meaning - is that of “drawing together” - as the feet of a sheep when tied, or twisting - as a rope; and the idea here is, that Job was drawn up, compressed, bound by his afflictions - and that this was a witness against him. The word “compressed” comes as near to the sense as any one that we have.Which is a witness against me - That is, “this is an argument against my innocence. The fact that God has thus compressed, and fettered, and fastened me; that he has bound me as with a cord - as if I were tied for the slaughter, is an argument on which my friends insist, and to which they appeal, as a proof of my guilt. I cannot answer it. They refer to it constantly. It is the burden of their demonstration, and how can I reply to it?” The position of mind here is, that he could appeal to God for his uprightness, but these afflictions stood in the way of his argument for his innocence with his friends. They were the “usual” proofs of God‘s displeasure, and he could not well meet the argument which was drawn from them in his case, for in all his protestations of innocence there stood these afflictions - the usual proofs of God‘s displeasure against people - as evidence against him, to which they truimphantly appealed.

And my leanness rising up in me - Dr. Good renders this, “my calumniator.” Wemyss, “false witnesses.” So Jerome, “falsiloquus.” The Septuagint renders it,” my lie - το ψευδος μου to pseudos mou - rises up against me.” The Hebrew word ( kachash כחש) means properly “a lie, deceit, hypocrisy.” But it cannot be supposed that Job would formally admit that he was a liar and a hypocrite. This would have been to concede the whole point in dispute. The word, therefore, it would seem, “must” have some other sense. The verb כחש kachash is used to denote not only to “lie,” but also to “waste away, to fail.” Psalm 109:24, “my flesh “faileth” of fatness.” The idea seems to have been, that a person whose flesh had wasted away by sickness, as it were, “belied himself;” or it was a “false testimony” about himself; it did not give “a fair representation” of him. That could be obtained only when he was in sound health. Thus, in Habakkuk 3:17, “the labour of the olive “shall fail.”” Hebrew shall “lie” or “deceive;” that is, it shall belie itself, or shall not do justice to itself; it shall afford no fair representation of what the olive is fitted to produce. So the word is used Hosea 9:2. It is used here in this sense, as denoting “the false appearance of Job” - his present aspect - which was no proper representation of himself; that is, his emaciated and ulcerated form. This, he says, was a “witness” against him. It was one of the proofs to which they appealed, and he did not know how to answer it. It was usually an evidence of divine displeasure, and he now solemnly and tenderly addresses God, and says, that he had furnished this testimony against him - and he was overwhelmed.

Verse 9He teareth me in his wrath - The language here is all taken from the ferocity of wild beasts; and the idea is, that his enemy had come upon him as a lion seizes upon its prey. Rosenmuller, Reiske, and some others suppose that this refers to God. Cocceius refers it to Satan. Schultens, Dr. Good, and some others, to Eliphaz, as the leading man among his adversaries. I have no doubt that this is the true reference. The connection seems to demand this; and we ought not to suppose that Job would charge this upon God, unless there is the clearest evidence. The whole passage is a description of the manner in which Job supposed his friends had come upon him. He says they had attacked him like wild beasts. Yet it must be admitted that he sometimes attributes these feelings to God, and says that he came upon him like a roaring lion see Job 10:16-17.

Who hateth me - Or rather, “and persecutes me, or is become my adversary,” for so the word used here (שטם satam ) means; see the notes at Job 30:21.He gnasheth upon me with his teeth - As an enraged wild animal does when about to seize upon its prey. A similar figure occurs in Otway, in his “Orphan:”- For my Castalio‘s false;False as the wind, the water, or the weather:Cruel as tigers o‘er their trembling prey:I feel him in my breast, he tears my heart,And at each sigh he drinks the gushing blood.And so Homer, when he describes the wrath of Achilles as he armed himself to avenge the death of Patroclus, mentions among other signs of wrath his gnashing his teeth:Του και οδοντων μεν καναχη πελε. Tou kai odonton men kanache pele Iliad xix. 364.So Virgil describes his hero asfurens animis, dentibus infrendens.Aeneid viii. 228.Mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me - Looks fiercely; watches me narrowly - as an animal does his victim when about to seize upon it. The image is probably drawn from the intense gaze of the lion when about to pounce upon his prey. “He darts piercing looks at me; or looks at me with a fierce and penetrating eye.”

Verse 10They have gaped upon me - Changing the form from the singular to the plural, and including “all” his pretended friends. Such a change in the number is not uncommon. His mind seems to have passed from the particular instance which he was contemplating, to “all” his friends, and he suddenly felt that “all” had treated him alike. The meaning is, that, like wild beasts, they open their mouth to devour me.They have gathered themselves together - They have entered into a conspiracy, and have “agreed” to oppose me. They are united in this thing, and all feel and act alike.

Verse 11

God hath delivered me - Margin “shut me up.” The meaning is, that God had committed him to their hands as a prisoner or captive. They had power over him to do as they pleased.To the ungodly - Into the hands of wicked people - meaning undoubtedly his professed friends.And turned me over - The word used here (from yarat ) means to throw ירט head long, to precipitate, to cast down. Here it means, “he has thrown me headlong into the hands of the wicked.”

Verse 12I was at ease - I was in a state of happiness and security. The word used here ( shalev ) means sometimes to be “at ease” in an improper sense; that is, to שלוbe in a state of “carnal security,” or living unconcerned in sin (Ezekiel 23:42; compare Proverbs 1:32); but here it is used in the sense of comfort. He had everything desirable around him.But he hath broken me asunder - He has crushed me.He hath also taken, me by my neck - Perhaps as an animal does his prey. We have all seen dogs seize upon their prey in this manner.And set me up for his mark - Changing the figure, and saying that God had directed his arrows against him; so Jeremiah, Lamentations 3:12:He hath bent his bow,And set me as a mark for the arrow.

Verse 13His archers - He does not come alone to shoot at me; he has employed a company of bowmen, who also direct “their” arrows against me. The word used here רב rab means properly “much, large,” great; and is applied to that which is powerful or mighty. It is nowhere else used in the sense of “archers,” and might be rendered “his many;” that is, his bands, hosts, or armies. But as all the ancient versions render it “arrows,” or “archers,” probably that sense is to be retained. Allusion is here made to those who claimed to be the friends of Job, but who now showed to his apprehension that they were merely sharp-shooters under the control of God, to deepen his woes.He cleaveth my reins asunder - With his arrows. They penetrate quite through me.

He poureth out my gall - The word “gall” means the “bile” - the yellowish green bitter fluid secreted in the liver. A similar figure occcurs in Lamentations 2:11, “My liver is poured upon the earth.” Among the pagan poets, also, the “liver” is represented as pierced, and as pouring out gore. Thus, Aesch. Agam. 442: θιγγανει προς ηπαρ thinganei pros hepar So also 801: Δηγμα λυπης εφ ηπαρ προσικνειται Degma lupes eph' hepar prosikneitai So in the Iliad, xiii. 412, xx. 469,470. The meaning here is, “I am transfixed with a deadly wound, and must die. God has come upon me as an armed man, and has pierced my vitals.”

Verse 14He breaketh me - He crushes me.With breach upon breach - He renews and repeats the attack, and thus completely overwhelms me. One blow follows another in such quick succession, that he does not give me time to recover.He runneth upon me like a giant - With great and irresistible force - as some strong and mighty warrior whom his adversary cannot resist. The Hebrew is גבור gıbbor - “a mighty one.” Septuagint, “The mighty - δυναμενοι dunamenoi - run upon me.” Vulgate, “gigas ” - a giant.

Verse 15I have sewed sackcloth - I have put on the badges of humiliation and grief; see the notes at Isaiah 3:24. This was the usual emblem of mourning. In order more deeply to express it, or to make it a “permanent” memorial of sorrow, it would seem that it was “sewed” around the body - as we “sew” crape on the hat.And defiled my horn in the dust - The word rendered “defiled” (from עלל ‛alal ) has, according to Gesenius, the notion of “repetition,” derived from the use of the Arabic word. The Arabic means, to drink again, that is, after a former draught; and then, to drink deep. Hence, the word is applied to any action which is repeated - as to the second blow by which one already struck down is killed; to an after-harvest, or to gleaning in the fields. Here Gesenius supposes it means to “maltreat,” to “abuse;” and the idea according to him is, that he had covered his whole head in the dust. The word “horn” is used in the Scriptures to denote strength and power. The figure is taken from horned animals, whose strength resides in their horns; and hence, as the horn is the means of defense, the word comes to denote that on which one relies; his strength, honor, dignity. A horn,

made of “silver,” was also worn as an ornament, or as an emblem, on the forehead of females or warriors.It was probably used at first by warriors as a symbol of “power, authority,” or “strength;” and the idea was undoubtedly derived from the fact that the strength of animals was seen to lie in the horn. Then it came to be a mere ornament, and as such is used still in the vicinity of Mount Lebanon. Oriental customs do not undergo those changes which are so common in the Western world, and it is possible that this custom prevailed in the time of Job. The “horn” was usually worn by females; it is also a part of the ornament on the head of a male, and as such would be regarded doubtless as an emblem of honor. The custom is prevalent at the present day among the Druses of Lebanon, the Egyptian cavalry, and in some parts of Russia bordering on Persia. Dr. Macmichael, in his “Journey,” says: “One of the most extraordinary parts of the attire of their females (Drusus of Lebanon), is a silver horn, sometimes studded with jewels, worn on the head in various positions, “distinguishing their different conditions.”A married woman has it affixed to the right side of the head, a widow on the left, and a virgin is pointed out by its being placed on the very crown. Over this silver projection the long veil is thrown, with which they so completely conceal their faces to rarely have more than an eye visible.” The horn worn by females is a conical tube, about twelve inches long. Col. Light mentions the horn of the wife of an emir, made of gold, and studded with precious stones. Horns are worn by Abyssinian chiefs in military reviews, or on parade after a victory. They are much shorter than those of the females, and are about the size and shape of a candle extinguisher, fastened by a strong fillet to the head, which is often made of metal; they are not easily broken off. This special kind of horn is undoubtedly the kind made by the false prophet Zedekiah for Ahab, to whom he said, when Ahab was about to attack the enemy, “With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou hast conquered them;” 1 Kings 22:11 ; 2 Chronicles 18:10 ; compare Deuteronomy 33:17. The idea here is, that whatever once constituted the reliance or the glory of Job, was now completely prostrate. It was as if it were buried in the earth.

Verse 16My face is foul with weeping - Wemyss, “swelled.” Noyes, “red.” Good, “tarnished.” Luther, “ist geschwollen” - is swelled. So Jerome. The Septuagint, strangely enough, η γαστηρ μον συνκεκαυται, κ. τ. λ. he gaster mou sunkekautai etc. “my belly is burned with weeping.” The Hebrew word (חמר chamar ) means

to boil up, to ferment, to foam. Hence, it means to be red, and the word is often used in this sense in Arabic - from the idea of becoming heated or inflamed. Here it probably means either to be “swelled,” as any thing does that “ferments,” or to be “red” as if “heated” - the usual effect of weeping. The idea of being “defiled” is not in the word.And on my eyelid; is the shadow of death - On the meaning of the word rendered “shadow of death,” see the notes at Job 3:5. The meaning is, that darkness covered his eyes, and he felt that he was about to die. One of the usual indications of the approach of death is, that the sight fails, and everything seems to be dark. Hence, Homer so often describes death by the phrase, “and darkness covered his eyes;” or the form “a cloud of death covered his eyes” - θανατου νεφος οσσε εκαλυψη thanatou nephos osse ekalupse The idea here is, that he experienced the indications of approaching death.

Verse 17Not for any injustice … - Still claiming that he does not deserve his sorrows, and that these calamities had not come upon him on account of any enormous sins, as his friends believed.My prayer is pure - My devotion; my worship of God is not hypocritical - as my friends maintain.

Verse 18O earth - Passionate appeals to the earth are not uncommon in the Scriptures; see the notes at Isaiah 1:2. Such appeals indicate deep emotion, and are among the most animated forms of personification.Cover not thou my blood - Blood here seems to denote the wrong done to him. He compares his situation with that of one who had been murdered, and calls on the earth not to conceal the crime, and prays that his injuries may not be hidden, or pass unavenged. Aben Ezra, Dr. Good, and some others, however, suppose that he refers to blood shed “by” him, and that the idea is, that he would have the earth reveal any blood if he had ever shed any; or in other words, that it is a strong protestation of his innocence. But the former interpretation seems to accord best with the connection. It is the exclamation of deep feeling. He speaks as a man about to die, but he says that he would die as an innocent and a much injured man, and he passionately prays that his death may not pass unavenged. God had crushed him, and his friends had wronged him, and he now earnestly

implores that his character may yet be vindicated. “According to the saying of the Arabs, the blood of one who was unjustly slain remained upon the earth without sinking into it; until the avenger of blood came up. It was regarded as a proof of innocence.” Eichhorn, “in loc” That there is much of irreverence in all this must, I think, be conceded. It is not language for us to imitate. But it is not more irreverent and unbecoming than what often occurs, and it is designed to show what the human heart “will” express when it is allowed to give utterance to its real feelings.And let my cry have no place - Let it not be hid or concealed. Let there be nothing to hinder my cry from ascending to heaven. The meaning is, that Job wished his solemn protestations of his innocence to go abroad. He desired that all might hear him. He called on the nations and heaven to hear. He appealed to the universe. He desired that the earth would not conceal the proof of his wrongs, and that his cry might not be confined or limited by any bounds, but that it might go abroad so that all worlds might hear.

Verse 19My witness is in heaven - That is, I can appeal to God for my sincerity. He is my witness; and he will bear record for me. This is an evidence of returning confidence in God - to which Job always returns even after the most passionate and irreverent expressions. Such is his real trust in God, that though he is betrayed at times into expressions of impatience and irreverence, yet he is sure to return to calmer views, and to show that he has true confidence in the Most High. The strength, the power, and the point of his expressions of passion and impatience are against his “friends;” but they “sometimes” terminate on God, as if even he was leagued with them against him. But he still had “permanent” or “abiding” confidence in God.My record is on high - Margin “in the high places.” It means, in heaven. Luther renders this, und der mich kennet, ist in der Hohe- and he who knows me is on high. The Hebrew is שהדי sahedıy - “my witness;” properly an eye witness. The meaning is, that he could appeal to God as a witness of his sincerity.

Verse 20My friends scorn me - Margin “are my scorners.” That is, his friends had him in derision and mocked him, and he could only appeal with tears to God.

Mine eye poureth out tears unto God - Despised and mocked by his friends, he made his appeal to one who he knew would regard him with compassion. This shows that the heart of Job was substantially right. Notwithstanding, all his passionate exclamations; and notwithstanding, his expressions, when he was urged on by his sorrows to give vent to improper emotions in relation to God; yet he had a firm confidence in him, and always returned to right feelings and views. The heart may sometimes err. The best of people may sometimes give expression to improper feelings. But they will return to just views, and will ultimately evince unwavering confidence in God.

Verse 21Oh that one might plead for a man - A more correct rendering of this would be, “Oh that it might be for a man to contend with God;” that is, in a judicial controversy. It is the expression of an earnest desire to carry his cause at once before God, and to be permitted to argue it there. This desire Job had often expressed; see Job 13:3, note; Job 13:18-22, notes. On the grammatical construction of the passage, see Rosenmuller.As a man pleadeth for his neighbour - Hebrew “the son of man;” that is, the offspring of man. Or, rather, as a man contendeth with his neighbor; as one man may carry on a cause with another. He desired to carry his cause directly before God, and to be permitted to argue the case with him, as one is permitted to maintain an argument with a man; see the notes at Job 13:20-21.

Verse 22When a few years are come - Margin “years of number;” that is, numbered years, or a few years. The same idea is expressed in Job 7:21; see the notes at that place. The idea is, that he must soon die. He desired, therefore, before he went down to the grave, to carry his cause before God, and to have, as he did not doubt he should have, the divine attestation in his favor; compare the notes at Job 19:25-27. Now he was overwhelmed with calamities and reproaches, and was about to die in this condition. He did not wish to die thus. He wished that the reproaches might be wiped off, and that his character might be cleared up and made fair. He believed assuredly that if he could be permitted to carry his cause directly before God, he might be able to vindicate his character, and to obtain the divine verdict in his favor; and if he obtained that, he was not unwilling to die. It is the expression of such a wish as every man has, that his sun may not go down

under a cloud; that whatever aspersions may rest on his character may be wiped away; and that his name, if remembered at all when he is dead, may go untarnished down to future times, and be such that his friends may repeat it without a blush.

17 Chapter 17 Verse 1My breath is corrupt - Margin or “spirit is spent.” The idea is, that his vital powers were nearly extinct; his breath failed; his power was weakened, and he was ready to die. This is connected with the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. There was no necessity of making a new chapter here, and we have one of those unfortunate breaks in the middle of a paragraph, and almost of a sentence, which are too common in the Scriptures.The graves are ready for me - The Hebrew is plural, but why so used I know not. The Vulgate is singular - sepulchrum. The Septuagint renders it, “I pray for a tomb (singular, ταφης taphes ), but I cannot obtain it.” Possibly the meaning is, “I am about to be united “to the graves,” or “to tombs.”” Schultens remarks that the plural form is common in Arabic poetry, as well as in poetry in general.

Verse 2And doth not mine eye continue in their provocation? - Margin “lodge.” This is the meaning of the Hebrew word used here - talan It properly denotes to נלן pass the night or to lodge in a place, as distinguished from a permanent residence. The idea here seems to be, that his eye “rested” on their provocations. It remained fixed on them. It was not a mere glance, a passing notice, but was such a view as resulted from a careful observation. It was not such a view as a traveler would obtain by passing hastily by, but it was such as one would obtain who had encamped for a time, and had an opportunity of looking around him with care, and seeing things as they were. Thus explained, there is much poetic beauty in the passage. The Vulgate, however, renders it, “I have not sinned, and mine eye remains in bitterness.” The Septuagint, “I supplicate in distress - καμνων kamnon - yet what have I done? Strangers came, and stole my substance: who is the man?” The simple meaning is, that Job had a calm view of their wickedness, and that he could not be deceived.

Verse 3

Lay down now - This is evidently an address to God - a repetition of the wish which he had so often expressed, that he might be permitted to bring his cause directly before him; see Job 13:3. The whole passage here is obscure, because we are in a great measure ignorant of the ancient practices in courts of law, and of the ancient forms of trial. The general sense seems to be, that Job desires the Deity to enter into a judicial investigation, and to give him a “pledge” - or, as we should say, a “bond,” or “security” - that he would not avail himself of his almighty power, but would place him on an equality in the trial, and allow him to plead his cause on equal terms; see the notes at Job 13:20-22. The phrase “lay down now” means, lay down a pledge, or something of that kind; and may have referred to some ancient custom of giving security on going to trial, that no advantage would be taken, or that the parties would abide by the decision in the case.Put me in a surety with thee - The word used here (ערבני ‛arabıyn ) is from ערב ‛arab to mix, mingle; to exchange, to barter and then to become surety for anyone - that is, to “exchange” places with him, or to stand in his place; Genesis 43:9; Genesis 44:32. Here the idea seems to be, that Job wished the Deity to give him some pledge or security that justice would be done, or that he would not take advantage of his power and majesty to overawe him. Or, as has been remarked, it may refer to some custom of furnishing security on a voluntary trial or arbitration, that the award of the referees would be observed. I think it most probable that this is the idea. The controversy here was to be voluntary. In a voluntary trial, or an arbitration, there is a necessity of some security by the parties that the decision shall be submitted to - a pledge to each other that they will abide by it. Such a pledge Job desired in this case. All this is language taken from courts, and should not be pressed too much, nor should Job be hastily charged with irreverence. Having once suggested the idea of a “trial” of the cause, it was natural for him to use the language which was commonly employed in reference to such trials; and these expressions are to be regarded as thrown in for the sake of “keeping,” or verisimilitude.Who is he that will strike hands with me? - Striking hands then, as now, seems to have been one mode of confirming an agreement, or ratifying a compact. The idea here is,” Who is there that will be surety to me for thee?” that is, for the faithful observance of right and justice. There is an appearance of irreverence in this language, but it arises from carrying out the ideas pertaining to a form of trial in a court. In entering into “sureties,” it was usual to unite hands; see Proverbs 6:1:

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend,If thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger.So Proverbs 17:18:A man void of understanding striketh hands,And becometh surety in the presence of his friendCompare Proverbs 11:15; Proverbs 22:26. The same custom prevailed in the times of Homer and of Virgil. Thus, Homer (Iliad, β b says:Που δη - - δεξιαι ης επεπιθμεν - Pou de4 - - dexiai hes epepithmen - And so Virgil (Aeneid 4:597) says;- en dextra fidesque.

Verse 4For thou hast hid their heart from understanding - That is, the heart of his professed friends. Job says that they were blind and perverse, and indisposed to render him justice; and he therefore pleads that he may carry his cause directly before God. He attributes their want of understanding to the agency of God in accordance with the doctrine which prevailed in early times, and which is so often expressed in the Scriptures, that God is the source of light and truth, and that when people are blinded it is in accordance with his wise purposes; see Isaiah 6:9-10. It is “because” they were thus blind and perverse, that he asks the privilege of carrying the cause at once up to God - and who could blame him for such a desire?Therefore thou shalt not exalt them - By the honor of deciding a case like this, or by the reputation of wisdom. The name of sage or “wise” man was among the most valued in those times; but Job says that that would not be awarded to his friends. God would not exalt or honor people thus devoid of wisdom.

Verse 5He that speaketh flattery to his friends - Noyes renders this, “He that delivers up his friend as a prey, the eyes of his children shall fail.” So Wemyss, “He who delivers up his friends to plunder.” Dr. Good, “He that rebuketh his friends with mildness, even the eyes of his children shall be accomplished.” The Septuagint, “He announces evil for his portion; his eyes fail over his sons.” The Vulgate, “He

promises spoil to his companions, and the eyes of his sons fail.” The word rendered “flattery” ( cheleq חלק) properly means “that which is smooth, smoothness” (from chalaq to be smooth); and thence it denotes “a lot” or חלק “portion,” because “a smooth stone” was anciently used to cast lots in dividing spoils; Deuteronomy 18:8. Here it is synonymous with plunder or spoil; and the idea is, that he who betrayeth his friends to the spoil or to the spoiler, the eyes of his children shall fail. The meaning in this connection is, that the friends of Job had acted as one would who should announce the residence of his neighbors to robbers, that they might come and plunder them. Instead of defending him, they had acted the part of a traitor. Schultens says that this verse is “a Gordian knot;” and most commentators regard it as such; but the above seems to give a clear and consistent meaning. It is evidently a proverb, and is designed to bear on the professed friends of Job, and to show that they had acted a fraudulent part toward him. In Job 17:4, he had said that God had hid their heart from understanding, and that wisdom had failed them. He “here” says that in addition to a want of wisdom, they were like a man who should betray his neighbors to robbers.Even the eyes of his children shall fail - He shall be punished. To do this is a crime, and great calamity shall come upon him, represented by the failure of the eyes of his children. Calamity is not unfrequently expressed by the loss of the eyes; see Proverbs 30:17.

Verse 6He hath also - That is, God has done this.Also a by-word - A proverb (משל mashal ); a term of reproach, ridicule, or scorn. lie has exposed me to derision.And aforetime - Margin “before them.” The margin is the correct translation of the Hebrew, פנים panıym It means, in their presence, or in their view.I was as a tabret - This is an unhappy translation. The true meaning is,” I am become their “abhorrence,” or am to them an object of contempt.” Vulgate, “I am an exampie (“exemplum ”) to them.” Septuagint, “I am become a laughter ( γελως gelos ) to them.” The Chaldee renders it, “Thou hast placed me for a proverb to the people, and I shall be Gehenna (גיהנם gayhınnom ) to them.” The Hebrew word - topheth תפת or “Tophet,” is the name which is often given in the Scriptures to the valley of Hinnom - the place where children were sacrificed to Moloch; see the notes at Matthew 5:22. But there is no evidence or probability

that the word was so used in the time of Job. It is never used in the Scriptures in the sense of a “tabret,” that is a tabor or small drum; though the word תף toph is thus used; see the notes at Isaiah 5:12. The word used here is derived, probably, from the obsolete verb תיף typ - “to spit out;” and then to spit out with contempt. The verb is so used in Chaldee. “Castell.” The meaning of the word probably still lives in the Arabic, The Arabic word means to spit out with contempt; and the various forms of the nouns derived from the verb are applied to anything detested, or detestable; to the parings of the nails; to an abandoned woman; to a dog, etc. See “Castell” on this word. I have no doubt that is the sense here, and that we have here a word whose true signification is to be sought in the Arabic; and that Job means to say that he was treated as the most loathsome and execrable object.

Verse 7Mine eye is dim by reason of sorrow - Schultens supposes that this refers to his external appearance in general, as being worn down, exhausted, “defaced” by his many troubles; but it seems rather to mean that his eyes failed on account of weeping.And all my members are as a shadow - “I am a mere skeleton, I am exhausted and emaciated by my sufferings.” It is common to speak of persons who are emaciated by sickness or famine as mere shadows. Thus, Livy (L. 21:40) says, Effigies, imo, “umbrce hominum;” fame, frigore, illuvie, squalore enecti, contusi, debilitati inter saxa rupesque. So Aeschylus calls Oedipus - Οιδιπου σκιαν Oidipou skian - the shadow of Oedipus.

Verse 8Upright men shall be astonished at this - At the course of events in regard to me. They will be amazed that God has suffered a holy man to be plunged into such calamities, and to be treated in this manner by his friends. The fact at which he supposes they would be so much astonished was, that the good were afflicted in this manner, and that no relief was furnished.And the innocent shall stir up himself - Shall rouse himself, or assume vigor to resist the wicked.The hypocrite - The wicked - alluding probably to his professed friends. The idea of hypocrisy which the sentence conveys arises from the fact, that they professed to be “his” friends, and had proved to be false; and that they had

professed to be the friends of God, and yet had uttered sentiments inconsistent with any right views of him. He now says, that that could not go unnoticed. The world would be aroused at so remarkable a state of things, and a just public indignation would be the result.

Verse 9The righteous also shall hold on his way - The meaning of this verse is plain; but the connection is not so apparent. It seems to me that it refers to “Job himself,” and is a declaration that “he,” a righteous man, who had been so grievously calumniated, would hold on his way, and become stronger and stronger, while “they” would sink in the public esteem, and be compelled to abandon their position. It is the expression of a confident assurance that “he” would be more and more confirmed in his integrity, and would become stronger and stronger in God. Though Job intended, probably, that this should be applied to himself, yet he has expressed it in a general manner, and indeed the whole passage has a proverbial cast; and it shows that even then it was the settled belief that the righteous would persevere. As an expression of the early faith of the pious in one of the now settled doctrines of Christianity, “the perseverance of the saints,” this doctrine is invaluable. It shows that that doctrine has traveled down from the earliest ages. It was one of the elementary doctrines of religion in the earliest times. It became a proverb; and was admitted among the undisputed maxims of the wise and good, and it was such a sentiment as was just adapted to the circumstances of Job - a much tried and persecuted man. He was in all the danger of apostasy to which the pious are usually exposed; he was tempted to forsake his confidence in God; he was afflicted for reasons which he could not comprehend; he was without an earthly friend to sustain him, and he seemed to be forsaken by God himself; yet he had the fullest conviction that he would be enabled to persevere. The great principle was settled, that if there was true religion in the heart, it would abide; that if the path of righteousness had been entered, he who trod it would keep on his way.And he that hath clean hands - The innocent; the friend of God; the man of pure life; see the notes at Job 9:30; compare Psalm 24:4. “Clean hands” here, are designed to denote a pure and holy life. Among the ancients they were regarded as indicative of purity of heart. Porphyry remarks (de antro Nympharum ) that in the “mysteries,” those who were initiated were accustomed to wash their hands with honey instead of water, as a pledge that they would preserve

themselves from every impure and unholy thing; see Burder, in Rosenmuller‘s Alte u. neue Morgenland, in loc.Shall be stronger and stronger - Margin, as in Hebrew add strength. He shall advance in the strength of his attachment to God. This is true. The man of pure and blameless life shall become more and more established in virtue; more confirmed in his principles; more convinced of the value and the truth of religion. Piety, like everything else, becomes stronger by exercise. The man who speaks truth only, becomes more and more attached to truth; the principle of benevolence is strengthened by being practiced; honesty, the more it is exhibited, becomes more the settled rule of the life; and he who prays, delights more and more in his appoaches to God. The tendency of religion in the heart is to grow stronger and stronger; and God intends that he who has once loved him, shall continue to love him forever.

Verse 10But as for you all, do you return - This may mean, either, “return to the debate;” or, “return from your unjust and uncharitable opinion concerning me.” The former seems to accord best with the scope of the passage. Tindal renders it, “Get you hence.” Dr. Good, “Get ye hence, and begone, I pray.” Wemyss, “Repeat your discourses as often as you may, I do not find a wise man among you.” It is doubtful, however, whether the Hebrew will bear this construction.For I cannot find one wise man among you - Perhaps the idea here is, “I have not yet found one wise man among you, and you are invited, therefore, to renew the argument. Hitherto you have said nothing that indicates wisdom. Try again, and see if you can say anything now that shall deserve attention.” If this is the meaning, it shows that Job was willing to hear all that they had to say, and to give them credit for wisdom, if they ever evinced any.

Verse 11My days are past - “I am about to die.” Job relapses again into sadness - as he often does. A sense of his miserable condition comes over him like a cloud, and he feels that he must die.My purposes are broken off - All my plans fail, and my schemes of life come to an end. No matter what they could say now, it was all over with him, and he must die; compare Isaiah 38:12:“My habitation is taken away, and is removed from me

Like a shepherd‘s tent;My life is cut off as by a weaverWho severeth the web from the loom;Between the morning and the night thou wilt make an end of me.”Even the thoughts of my heart - Margin, possessions. Noyes, “treasures.” Dr. Good, “resolves.” Dr. Stock, “the tenants of my heart.” Vulgate, “torquen‘es cor meum.” Septuagint, τα αρθρα της καρδιας μου ta arthra tes kardias mou - the strings of my heart. The Hebrew word ( morash מורש) means properly possession (from yarash to ירש inherit); and the word here means the dear possessions of his heart; his cherished plans and schemes; the delights of his soul - the purposes which he had hoped to accomplish. All these were now to be broken on by death. This is to man one of the most trying things in death. All his plans must be arrested. His projects of ambition and gain, of pleasure and of fame, of professional eminence and of learning, all are arrested midway. The farmer is compelled to leave his plow in the furrow; the mechanic, his work unfinished; the lawyer, his brief half prepared; the student, his books lying open; the man who is building a palace, leaves it incomplete; and he who is seeking a crown, is taken away when it seemed just within his grasp. How many unfinished plans are caused by death every day! How many unfinished books, sermons, houses, does it make! How many schemes of wickedness and of benevolence, of fraud and of kindness, of gain and of mercy, are daily broken in upon by death! Soon, reader, all your plans and mine will be ended - mine, perhaps, before these lines meet your eye; yours soon afterward. God grant that our purposes of life may be such that we shall be willing to have them broken in upon - all so subordinate to the GREAT PLAN of being prepared for heaven, that we may cheerfully surrender them at any moment, at the call of the Master summoning us into his awful presence!

Verse 12They change - The word “they” in this place, some understand as referring to his friends; others, to his thoughts. Rosenmuller supposes it is to be taken impersonally, and that the meaning is, “night is become day to me.” Wemyss translates it, “night is assigned me for day.” So Dr. Good renders it. The meaning may be, that the night was to him as the day. He had no rest. The period when he had formerly sought repose, was now made like the day, and all was alike gloom and sadness.

The light is short because of darkness - Margin, near. The meaning is, probably, “even the day has lost its usual brilliancy and cheerfulness, and has become gloomy and sad. It seems to be like night. Neither night nor day is natural to me; the one is restless and full of cares like the usual employments of day, and the other is gloomy, or almost night, where there is no comfort and peace. Day brings to me none of its usual enjoyments. It is short, gloomy, sad, and hastens away, and a distressing and restless night soon comes on.”

Verse 13If I wait - Or more accurately, “truly I expect that the grave will be my home.” The word rendered “if” (אם 'ım ) is often used in such a sense. The meaning is, “I look certainly to the grave as my home. I have made up my mind to it, and have no other expectation.”The grave - Hebrew שאול she'ol It may mean here either the grave, or the region of departed spirits, to which he expected soon to descend.Mine house - My home; my permanent abode.I have made my bed - I am certain of making my bed there. I shall soon lie down there.In the darkness - In the grave, or in the dark world to which it leads; see the notes at Job 10:21-22.

Verse 14I have said - Margin, cried, or called. The sense is, “I say,” or “I thus address the grave.”To corruption - The word used here (שחת shachath ) means properly a pit, or pit-fall, Psalm 7:15; Psalm 9:15; a cistern, or a ditch, Job 9:31; or the sepulchre, or grave, Psalm 30:9; Job 33:18, Job 33:30. The Septuagint renders it here by θανατον thanaton - death. Jerome (Vulgate), putredini dixi. According to Gesenius (Lex), the word never has the sense of corruption. Schultens, however, Rosenmuller, and others, understand it in the sense of corruption or putrefaction. This accords, certainly, with the other hemistich, and better constitutes a parallelism with the “worm” than the word “grave” would. It seems probable that this is the sense here; and if the proper meaning of the word is a pit, or the grave, it here denotes the grave, as containing a dead and moulderling body.Thou art my father - “I am nearly allied to it. I sustain to it a relation like that of a child to a father.” The idea seems to be that of family likeness; and the object is

to present the most striking and impressive view of his sad and sorrowful condition. He was so diseased, so wretched, so full of sores and of corruption (see Job 7:5), that he might be said to be the child of one mouldering in the grave, and was kindred to a family in the tomb!To the worm - The worm that feeds upon the dead. He belonged to that sad family where the body was putrifying, and where it was covered with worms; see the notes at Isaiah 14:11.My mother - I am so nearly allied to the worms, that the connection may be compared to that between a mother and her son.And my sister - “The sister here is mentioned rather than the brother, because the noun rendered worm in the Hebrew, is in the feminine gender.” Rosenmuller. The sense of the whole is, that Job felt that he belonged to the grave. He was destined to corruption. He was soon to lie down with the dead. His acquaintance and kindred were there. So corrupt was his body, so afflicted and diseased, that he seemed to belong to the family of the putrifying, and of those covered with worms! What an impressive description; and yet how true is it of all! The most vigorous frame, the most beautiful and graceful form, the most brilliant complexion, has a near relationship to the worm, and will soon belong to the mouldering family beneath the ground! Christian reader! such are you; such am I. Well, let it be so. Let us not repine. Be the grave our home; be the mouldering people there our parents, and brothers, and sisters. Be our alliance with the worms. There is a brighter scene beyond - a world where we shall be kindred with the angels, and ranked among the sons of God. In that world we shall be clothed with immortal youth, and shall know corruption no more. Then our eyes will shine with undiminished brilliancy forever; our cheeks glow with immortal health; our hearts beat with the pulsations of eternal life. Then our hands shall be feeble and our knees totter with disease or age no more; and then the current of health and joy shall flow on through our veins forever and eye! Allied now to worms we are, but we are allied to the angels too; the grave is to be our home, but so also is heaven; the worm is our brother, but so also is the Son of God! Such is man; such are his prospects here, such his hopes and destiny in the world to come. He dies here, but he lives in glory and honor hereafter forever.Shall man, O God of light and life,For ever moulder in the grave?Canst thou forget thy glorious work,Thy promise and thy power to save?

Shall life revisit dying worms,And spread the joyful insects‘ wing;And O shall man awake no more,To see thy face, thy name to sing?Faith sees the bright, eternal doors,Unfold to make her children way;They shall be clothed with endless life,And shine in everlasting day.The trump shall sound, the dead shall wake,From the cold tomb the slumberers spring;Through heaven with joy these myriads rise,And hail their Savior and their King.Dr. Dwight

Verse 15And where is now my hope? - What hope have I of life? What possibility is there of my escape from death?Who shall see it? - That is, who will see any hopes that I may now cherish fulfilled. If I cherish any, they will be disappointed, and no one will see them accomplished.

Verse 16They shall go down - That is, my hopes shall go down. All the expectations that I have cherished of life and happiness, will descend there with me. We have a similar expression when we say, that a man “has buried his hopes in the grave,” when he loses an only son.To the bars of the pit - “Bars of Sheol” - בד שאול bad she'ol Vulgate, “Profoundest deep.” Septuagint, εις αδην eis haden - to Hades. Sheol, or Hades, was supposed to be under the earth. Its entrance was by the grave as a gate that led to it. It was protected by bars - as prisons are - so that those who entered there could not escape; see the notes at Isaiah 14:9. It was a dark, gloomy dwelling, far away from light, and from the comforts which people enjoy in this life; see Job 10:21-22. To that dark world Job expected soon to descend; and though he did not regard that as properly a place of punishment, yet it was not a place of positive joy. It was a gloomy and wretched world - the land of darkness and of the shadow of death; and he looked to the certainty of going there not with

joy, but with anguish and distress of heart. Had Job been favored with the clear and elevated views of heaven which we have in the Christian revelation, death to him would have lost its gloom.We wonder, often, that so good a man expressed such a dread of death, and that he did not look more calmly into the future world. But to do him justice, we should place ourselves in his situation. We should lay aside all that is cheerful and glad in the views of heaven which Christianity has given us. We should look upon the future world as the shadow of death; a land of gloom and spectres; a place beneath the ground - dark, chilly, repulsive; and we shall cease to wonder at the expressions of even so good a man at the prospect of death. When we look at him, we should remember with thankfulness the different views which we have of the future world, and the source to which we owe them. To us, if we are pious in any measure as Job was, death is the avenue, not to a world of gloom, but to a world of light and glory. It opens into heaven. There is no gloom, no darkness, no sorrow. There all are happy; and there all that is mysterious in this life is made plain - all that is sad is succeeded by eternal joy. These views we owe to that gospel which has brought life and immortality to light; and when we think of death and the future world, when from the midst of woes and sorrows we are compelled to look out on eternity, let us rejoice that we are not constrained to look forward with the sad forebodings of the Sage of Uz, but that we may think of the grave cheered by the strong consolations of Christian hope of the glorious resurrection.When our rest together is in the dust - The rest of me and my hopes. My hopes and myself will expire together.

18 Chapter 18 Verse 2How long will it be ere ye make an end of words? - It has been made a question to whom this is addressed. It is in the plural number, and it is not usual in Hebrew when addressing an individual to make use of the plural form. Some have supposed that it is addressed to Job and to Eliphaz, as being both “long-winded” and tedious in their remarks. Others have supposed that it refers to Job “and the members of his family,” who possibly interposed remarks, and joined Job in his complaints. Others suppose that it refers to Eliphaz and Zophar, as being silent during the speech of Job, and not arresting his remarks as they ought to have done. Rosenmuller supposes that it refers to Job and those similar to him, who were mere feigners of piety, and that Bildad means to ask how long it

would be before they would be effectually silenced, and their complaints hushed. I see no great difficulty in supposing that the reference is to Job. The whole strain of the discourse evidently supposes it; and there is no evidence that any of the family of Job had spoken, nor does it seem at all probable that Bildad would reprove his own friends either for the length of their speeches, or for not interrupting an other. The custom in the East is to allow a man to utter all that he has to say without interruption.Mark - Hebrew understand; or be intelligent - תבינו tabıynu that is, either speak distinctly, clearly, intelligently; or consider and weigh our arguments. The former is the interpretation of Schultens, and seems to me to be the true one. The idea is this: “You, Job, have been altering mere words. They are words of complaint, without argument. Speak now in a different manner; show that you understand the case; advance arguments that are worthy of attention, and then we will reply.”

Verse 3Wherefore are we counted as beasts? - “Why are we treated in your remarks as if we had no sense, and were unworthy of sound argument in reply to what we say?” It is possible that there may be reference here to what Job said Job 12:7 - that even the beasts could give them information about God. But the general idea is, that Job had not treated their views with the attention which they deserved, but had regarded them as unworthy of notice.And reputed vile - The word used here (טמה tamah ) means to be unclean, or polluted; and the idea is, that Job regarded them as worthless or impious.

Verse 4He teareth himself - More correctly, “thou that tearest thyself in anger!” It is not an affirmation about Job, but it is a direct address to him. The meaning is, that he was in the paryoxysms of a violent rage; he acted like a madman.Shall the earth be forsaken for thee? - A reproof of his pride and arrogance. “Shall everything be made to give way for you? Are you the only man in the world and of so much importance, that the earth is to be made vacant for you to dwell in? Are the interests of all others to be sacrificed for you, and is everything else to give place for you? Are all the laws of God‘s government to be made to yield rather than that you should be punished?” Similar modes of expression to denote the insignificance of anyone who is proud and arrogant, are still used among the Arabs. “Since Muhammed died, the Imams govern.” “The world will not suffer

loss on your account.” “The world is not dependent on anyone man.” T. Hunt, in Lowth‘s Lectures on Hebrew Poetry. Rosenmuller‘s Morgenland, in lec.And shall the rock be removed out of his place? - “Shall the most firm and immutable things give way for your special accommodation? Shall the most important and settled principles of the divine administration be made to bend on your account?” These were not the principles and feelings of Job; and great injustice was done to him by this supposition. He was disposed to be submissive in the main to the divine arrangement. But this will describe the feelings of many a man of pride, who supposes that the divine arrangements should be made to bend for his special accommodation, and that the great, eternal principles of justice and right should give way rather than that he should be dealt with as common sinners are, and rather than that he should be cast into hell. Such people wish a special place of salvation for themselves. They are too proud to be saved as others are. They complain in their hearts that they are made to suffer, to lose their property, to be sick, to die - as others do. They would wish to be treated with special mercy, and to have special enactments in their favor, and would have the eternal laws of right made to bend for their special accommodation Such is the pride of the human heart!

Verse 5Yea - Truly; or, behold. Bildad here commences his remarks on the certain destiny of the wicked, and strings together a number of apparently proverbial sayings, showing that calamity in various forms would certainly overtake the wicked. There is nothing particularly new in his argument, though the use of the various images which he employs shows how deep was the conviction of this doctrine at that time, and how extensively it prevailed.The light of the wicked shall be put out - Light here is an emblem of prosperity.The spark of his fire - Hebrew the flame of his fire. There may be an allusion here to the customs of Arabian hospitality. This was, and is, their national glory, and it is their boast that no one is ever refused it. The emblem of fire or flame here may refer to the custom of kindling a fire on an eminence, near a dwelling, to attract the stranger to share the hospitality of the owner of it; or it may refer to the fire in his tent, which the stranger was always at liberty to share. In the collection of the Arabian poems, called the Hamasa, this idea occurs almost in the words of Bildad. The extract was furnished me by the Rev. Eli Smith. It is a

boast of Salamiel, a prince of Tema. In extolling the virtues of his tribe, he says, “No fire of ours was ever extinguished at night without a guest; and of our guests never did one disparage us.” The idea here is, that the wicked would attempt to show hospitality, but the means would be taken away. He would not be permitted to enjoy the coveted reputation of showing it to the stranger, and the fire which might invite the traveler, or which might confer comfort on him, would be put out in his dwelling. The inability to extend the offer of a liberal hospitality would be equivalent to the deepest poverty or the most trying affliction.

Verse 6And his candle - Margin, lamp. The reference is to a lamp that was suspended from the ceiling. The Arabians are fond of this image. Thus, they say, “Bad fortune has extinguished my lamp.” Of a man whose hopes are remarkably blasted, they say, “He is like a lamp which is immediately extinguished if you let it sink in the oil.” See Schultens. The putting out of a lamp is to the Orientals an image of utter desolation. It is the universal custom to have a light burning in their houses at night. “The houses of Egypt, in modern times, are never without lights; they burn lamps all the night long, and in every occupied apartment. So requisite to the comfort of a family is this custom reckoned, and so imperious is the power which it exercises, that the poorest people. would rather retrench part of their food than neglect it.” Paxton. It is not improbable that this custom prevailed in former times in Arabia, as it does now in Egypt; and this consideration will give increased beauty and force to this passage.

Verse 7The steps of his strength - Strong steps. “Steps of strength” is a Hebraism, to denote firm or vigorous steps.Shall be straitened - Shall be compressed, embarrassed, hindered. Instead of walking freely and at large, he shall be compressed and limited in his goings. “Large steps,” “free movement,” etc. are proverbial expressions among the Arabs, to denote freedom, prosperity, etc. RosenmulIer. Schultens quotes the following illustrations from the Arabic poets. From Ibn Doreid, “He who does not confine himself within human limits, his vast strides shall be straitened.” And from Taurizius,” After the battle of Bedrense, the steps were straitened.” The meaning here is, that he would be greatly impeded in his movements, instead of going forth at large and in full vigor as he had formerly done.

And his own counsel - His own plans shall be the means of his fall.

Verse 8For he is cast into a net by his own feet - He is caught in his own tricks, as if he had spread a net or dug a pitfall for another, and had fallen into it himself. The meaning is, that he would bring ruin upon himself while he was plotting the rain of others; see Psalm 9:16, “The wicked is snared by the work of his own hands;” compare the note at Job 5:13. The phrase “by his own feet” here means, that he walks there himself. He is not led or driven by others, but he goes himself into the net. Wild animals are sometimes driven, but he walks along of his own accord into the net, and has no one to blame but himself.And he walketh upon a snare - Or a pitfall. This was formerly the mode of taking wild beasts. It was done by excavating a place in the earth, and covering it over with turf, leaves, etc. supported in a slender manner; so that the lion, or elephant or tiger that should tread on it, would fall through. These methods of taking wild beasts have been practiced from the earliest times, and are practiced everywhere.

Verse 9The gin - Another method of taking wild beasts. It was a snare so made as to spring suddenly on an animal, securing him by the neck or feet. We use a trap for the same purpose. The Hebrew word (פח pach ) may denote anything of this kind - a snare, net, noose, etc. with which birds or wild animals are taken.By the heel - By the foot.And the robber shall prevail - He shall be overpowered by the highwayman; or the plunderer shall make a sudden descent upon him, and strip him of his all. The meaning is, that destruction would suddenly overtake him. There can be no doubt that Bildad meant to apply all this to Job.

Verse 10The snare is laid - All this language is taken from the modes of taking wild beasts; but it is not possible to designate with absolute certainty the methods in which it was done. The word used here (חבל chebel ) means a cord, or rope; and then a snare, gin, or toil, such as is used by hunters. It was used in some way as a noose to secure an animal. This was concealed (Hebrew) “in the earth” - so

covered up that an animal would not perceive it, and so constructed that it might be made to spring upon it suddenly.And a trap - We have no reason to suppose that at that time they employed steel to construct traps as we do now, or that the word here has exactly the sense which we give to it. The Hebrew word (מלכדת malkodeth ) is from לכד lakad - “to take,” “to catch,” and means a noose, snare, spring - by which an animal was seized. It is a general term; though undoubtedly used to denote a particular instrument, then well known. The general idea in all this is, that the wicked man would be suddenly seized by calamities, as a wild animal or a bird is taken in a snare. Independently of the interest of the entire passage Job 18:8-10 as a part of the argument of Bildad, it is interesting from the view which it gives of the mode of securing wild animals in the early periods of the world. They had no guns as we have; but they early learned the art of setting gins and snares by which they were taken. In illustrating this passage, it will not be inappropriate to refer to some of the modes of hunting practiced by the ancient Egyptians. The same methods were practiced then in catching birds and taking wild beasts as now, and there is little novelty in modern practices. The ancients had not only traps, nets, and springs, but also bird-lime smeared upon twigs, and made use of stalking-horses, setting dogs, etc. The various methods in which this was done, may be seen described at length in Wilkinson‘s Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii. pp. 1-81. The noose was employed to catch the wild ox, the antelope, and other animals.This seems to be a self-acting net, so constructed that the birds, when coming in contact with it, close it upon themselves.This trap appears as if in a vertical position, although, doubtless, it is intended to represent a trap lying upon the ground.There are other traps very similar to this, except that they are oval; and probably have a net like the former. They are composed of two arcs, which, being kept open by machinery in the middle, furnish the oval frame of the net; but when the bird flies in, and knocks out the pin in the center, the arcs collapse enclosing the bird in the net. One instance occurs, in a painting at Thebes, of a trap, in which a hyaena is caught, and carried on the shoulders of two men. It was a common method of hunting to enclose a large tract of land by a circle of nets, or to station men at convenient distances, and gradually to contract the circle by coming near to each other, and thus to drive all the wild animals into a narrow enclosure, where they could be easily slain. Some idea of the extent of those enclosures

may be formed from the by no means incredible circumstance related by Plutarch, that when the Macedonian conquerors were in Persia, Philotos, the son of Armenio, had hunting-nets that would enclose the space of an hundred furlongs. The Oriental sovereigns have sometimes employed whole armies in this species of hunting. Picture Bible.

Verse 11Terrors shall make him afraid - He shall be constantly subject to alarms, and shall never feel secure. “Terrors here are represented as allegorical persons, like the Furies in the Greek poets.” Noyes. The idea here is substantially the same as that given by Eliphaz, Job 15:21-22.And shall drive him to his feet - Margin, scatter. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The idea is, that he will be alarmed by such terrors; his self-composure will be dissipated, and he will “take to his heels.”

Verse 12His strength shall be hungerbitten - Shall be exhausted by hunger or famine.And destruction shall be ready at his side - Hebrew “Shall be fitted” נכון nakun “to his side.” Some have supposed that this refers to some disease, like the pleurisy, that would adhere closely to his side. So Jerome understands it. Schultens has quoted some passages from Arabic poets, in which calamities are represented as “breaking the side.” Bildad refers probably, to some heavy judgments that would crush a man; such that the ribs, or the human frame, could not bear; and the meaning is, that a wicked man would be certainly crushed by misfortune.

Verse 13It shall devour the strength of his skin - Margin, bars. The margin is a correct translation of the Hebrew. The word used (בדי badey construct with עורו ‛oro - his skin) means bars, staves, branches, and here denotes his limbs, members; or, more literally, the bones, as supports of the skin, or the human frame. The bones are regarded as the bars, or the framework, holding the other parts of the body in their place, and over which the skin is stretched. The word “it” here refers to the “first-born of death” in the other hemistich of the verse; and the meaning is, that the strength of his body shal be entirely exhausted.

The first-born of death - The “first-born” is usually spoken of as distinguished for vigor and strength; Genesis 49:3, “Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength;” and the idea conveyed here by the “first-born of death” is the most fearful and destructive disease that death has ever engendered; compare Milton‘s description of the progeny of sin, in Paradise Los. Diseases are called “the sons or children of death” by the Arabs, (see Schultens in loc.,) as being begotten by it.

Verse 14His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle - Security shall forsake his dwelling, and he shall be subject to constant alarms. There shall be nothing there in which he can confide, and all that he relied on as sources of safety shall have fled.And it shall bring him - That is, he shall be brought.To the king of terrors - There has been much variety in the explanation of this verse. Dr. Noyes renders it, “Terror pursues him like a king.” Dr. Good, “Dissolution shall invade him like a monarch.” Dr. Stock says. “I am sorry to part with a beautiful phrase in our common version, the king of terrors, as descriptive of death, but there is no authority for it in the Hebrew text.” Wemyss renders it, “Terror shall seize him as a king.” So Schultens translates it, “Gradientur in eum, instar regis, terrores.” Rosenmuller renders it as it is in our version. The Vulgate: Et calcet super eum, quasi rex, interitus - “destruction shall tread upon him as a king.” The Septuagint “and distress shall lay hold on him with the authority of a king” - αιτια βασιλικη satia basilike The Chaldee renders it, “shall be brought to the king of terrors” - למלך רגושתא is not evident, therefore, that we are to give up the beautiful phrase, “king of terrors.”The fair construction of the Hebrew, as it seems to me, is that which is conveyed in our common version - meaning, that the wicked man would be conducted, not merely to death, but to that kind of death where a fearful king would preside - a monarch infusing terrors into his soul. There is something singularly beautiful and appropriate in the phrase, “the king of terrors.” Death is a fearful monarch. All dread him. He presides in regions of chilliness and gloom. All fear to enter those dark regions where he dwells and reigns, and an involuntary shudder seizes the soul on approaching the confines of his kingdom. Yet all must be brought there; and though man dreads the interview with that fearful king, there is no release. The monarch reigns from age to age - reigns over all. There is but one way in

which he will cease to appear as a terrific king. - It is by confidence in Him who came to destroy death; that great Redeemer who has taken away his “sting,” and who can enable man to look with calmness and peace even on the chilly regions where he reigns. The idea here is not precisely that of the Roman and Grecian mythologists, of a terrific king, like Rhadamanthus, presiding over the regions of the dead but it is of death personified - of death represented as a king fitted to inspire awe and terror.

Verse 15It shall dwell in his tabernacle - It is uncertain what is to be understood as referred to here. Some suppose that the word to be understood is soul, and that the meaning is “his soul,” that is, he himself, “shall dwell in his tent.” Rosenmuller, Noyes, Wemyss, and others, suppose that the word is terror. “Terror (בלהה ballahah ) shall dwell in his tent,” the same word which is used in the plural in the previous verse. This is undoubtedly the correct sense; and the idea is, that his forsaken tent shall be a place of terror - somewhat, perhaps, as we speak of a forsaken house as “haunted.” It may be that Bildad refers to some such superstitious fear as we sometimes, and almost always in childhood, connect with the idea of a house in which nobody lives.Because it is none of his - It is no longer his. It is a forsaken, tenantless dwelling.Brimstone shall be scattered - Brimstone has been always the image of desolation. Nothing will grow on a field that is covered with sulphur; and the meaning here is, that his house would be utterly desolate and forsaken. Rosenmuller and Noyes suppose that there is an allusion here to a sudden destruction, such as was that of Sodom and Gomorrha. Grotius doubts whether it refers to that or to lightning. Others suppose that lightning is referred to both here and in Genesis 19:24; Deuteronomy 29:23. I can see no evidence here, however, that there is any reference to Sodom and Gomorrha, or that there is any allusion to lightning. If the allusion had been to Sodom, it would have been more full. That was a case “just in point” in the argument; and the fact that was exactly in point, and would have furnished to the friends of Job such an irrefragalbe proof of the position which they were defending, and that it is not worked into the very texture of their argument, is full demonstration, to my mind, that that remarkable event is not referred to in this place. The only thing necessarily implied in the language

before us is, that sulphur, the emblem of desolation, would be scattered on his dwelling, and that his dwelling would be wholly desolate.

Verse 16His roots shall be dried up - Another image of complete desolation - where he is compared to a tree that is dead - a figure whose meaning is obvious, and which often occurs; see Job 15:30, note; Job 8:12-13, notes.Above his branch - Perhaps referring to his children or family. All shall be swept away - an allusion which Job could not well hesitate to apply to himself.

Verse 17His remembrance shall perish - His name - all recollection of him. Calamity shall follow him even after death; and that which every man desires, and every good man has, and honored name when he is dead, will be denied him. Men will hasten to forget him as fast as possible; compare Proverbs 10:7, “The name of the wicked shall rot.”No name in the street - Men when they meet together in highways and places of concourse - when traveler meets traveler, and caravan caravan, shall not pause to speak of him and of the loss which society has substained by his death. It is one of the rewards of virtue that the good will speak of the upright man when he is dead; that they will pause in their journey, or in their business, to converse about him; and that the poor and the needy will dwell with affectionate interest upon their loss. “This” blessing, Bildad says, will be denied the wicked man. The world will not feel that they have any loss to deplore when he is dead. No great plan of benvolence has been arrested by his removal. The poor and the needy fare as well as they did before. The widow and the fatherless make no grateful remembrance of his name, and the world hastens to forget him as soon as possible. There is no man, except one who is lost to all virtue, who does not desire to be remembered when he is dead - by his children, his neighbors, his friends, and by the stranger who may read the record on the stone that marks his grave. Where this desire is “wholly” extinguished, man has reached the lowest possible point of degradation, and the last hold on him in favor of virtue has expired.

Verse 18

He shall be driven from light into darkness - Margin, “They shall drive him.” The meaning is, that he should be driven from a state of prosperity to one of calamity.And chased out of the world - Perhaps meaning that he should not be conducted to the grave with the slow and solemn pomp of a respectful funeral, but in a hurry - as a malefactor is driven from human life, and hastily commited to the earth. The living would be glad to be rid of him, and would “chase” him out of life.

Verse 19He shall neither have son … - All his family shall be cut off. He shall have no one to perpetuate his name or remembrance. All this Job could not help applying to himself, as it was doubtless intended he should. The facts in his case were just such as were supposed in these proverbs about the wicked; and hence, his friends could not but conclude that he was a wicked man; and hence, his friends could not but conclude that he was a wicked man; and hence, too, since these were undisputed maxims, Job felt so much embarrassment in answering them.

Verse 20They that come after him - Future ages; they who may hear of his history and of the manner in which he was cut off from life. So the passage has been generally rendered; so, substantially, it is by Dr. Good, Dr. Noyes, Rosenmuller, and Luther. The Vulgate translates it novissimi; the Septuagint, εσχατοι eschatoi - “the last” - meaning those that should live after him, or at a later period. But Schultens supposes that the word used here denotes those in “the West,” and the corresponding word rendered “went before,” denotes those in “the East.” With this view Wemyss concurs, who renders the whole verse:“The West shall be astonished at his end;The East shall be panic-struck.”According to this, it means that those who dwelt in the remotest regions would be astonished at the calamities which would come upon him. It seems to me that this accords better with the scope of the passage than the other interpretation, and avoids some difficulties which cannot be separated from the other view. The word translated in our version, “that come after him” acharyonıym is' אחרינים from אחר 'achar to be after, or behind; to stay behind, to delay, remain. It then means “after,” or “behind;” and as in the geography of the Orientals the face was

supposed to be turned to “the East,” instead of being turned to the North, as with us - a much more natural position than ours - the word “after,” or “behind,” comes to denote West, the right hand the South, the left the North; see the notes at Job 23:8-9.Thus, the phrase הים האחרין hayam ha'acharyon - “the sea behind, denotes the Mediterranean sea - the West; Deuteronomy 24:3; see also Deuteronomy 11:24; Deuteronomy 34:2; Joel 2:20, where the same phrase in Hebrew occurs. Those who dwelt in the “West,” therefore, would be accurately referred to by this phrase.Shall be astonied - Shall be “astonished” - the old mode of writing the word being “astonied;” Isaiah 52:14. It is not known, however, to be used in any other book than the Bible.As they that went before - Margin, or “lived with him.” Noyes, “his elders shall be struck with horror.” Vulgate, “et primos invadet “horror.” Septuagint, “amazement seizes “the first” - πρωτους protous But the more correct interpretation is that which refers it to the people of the East. The word קדמנים qadmonıym is from qadam to קדם precede, to go before; and then the derivatives refer to that which goes before, which is in front, etc.; and as face was turned to the East by geographers, the word comes to express that which is in the East, or near the sun-rising; see Joel 2:20; Job 23:8; Genesis 2:8. Hence, the phrase בני קדם beney qedem - “sons of the East” - meaning the persons who dwelt east of Palestine; Job 1:3; Isaiah 11:14; Genesis 25:6; Genesis 29:1. The word used here, ,( qadmonıym קדמנים) is used to denote the people or the regions of the East; in Ezekiel 47:8, Ezekiel 47:18; Zechariah 14:8. Here it means, as it seems to me, the people of the East; and the idea is that people everywhere would be astonished at the doom of the wicked man. His punishment would be so sudden and entire as to hold the world mute with amazement.Were affrighted - Margin, “laid hold on horror.” This is a more literal rendering. The sense is, they would be struck with horror at what would occur to him.

Verse 21Surely such are the dwellings of the wicked - The conclusion or sum of the whole matter. The meaning is, that the habitations of all that knew not God would be desolate - a declaration which Job could not but regard as aimed at himself; compare Job 20:29. This is the close of this harsh and severe speech. It is no wonder that Job should feel it keenly, and that he “did” feel it is apparent from the

following chapter. A string of proverbs has been presented, having the appearance of proof, and as the result of the long observation of the course of events, evidently bearing on his circumstances, and so much in point that he could not well deny their pertinency to his condition. He was stung to the quick, and and gave vent to his agonized feelings in the following chapter.

19 Chapter 19 Verse 2How long will ye vex my soul? - Perhaps designing to reply to the taunting speech of Bildad; Job 18:2. “He” had asked “how long it would be ere Job would make an end of empty talk?” “Job” asks, in reply, “how long” they would torture and afflict his soul? Or whether there was on hope that this would ever come to an end!And break me in pieces - Crush me, or bruise me - like breaking any thing in a mortar, or breaking rocks by repeated blows of the hammer. “Noyes.” He says they had crushed him, as if by repeated blows.

Verse 3These ten times - Many times; the word “ten” being used as we often say, “ten a dozen” or “twenty,” to denote many; see Genesis 31:7, “And your father hath changed my wages “ten times.” Leviticus 26:26, “and when I have broken your staff of bread, “ten women” shall bake your bread, in one oven;” compare Numbers 14:22; Nehemiah 4:6.You are not ashamed that you make yourselves strange to me - Margin, “harden yourselves strange to me.” Margin, “harden yourselves against me.” Gesenius, and after him Noyes, renders this, “Shameless ye stun me.” Wemyss, “Are ye not ashamed to treat me thus cruelly? The word used here (הכר hakar ) occurs no no where else, and hence, it is difficult to determine its meaning. The Vulgate renders it, “oppressing me.” The Septuagint, “and you are not ashamed to press upon me.” - επικεισθε υοι epikeisthe moi Schultens has gone into an extended examination of its meaning, and supposes that the primary idea is that of being “stiff,” or “rigid.” The word in Arabic, he says, means to be “stupid with wonder.” It is applied, he supposes, to those who are “stiff or rigid” with stupor; and then to those who have a stony heart and an iron an iron fore-head - and who can look on the suffering without feeling or compassion. This sense accords well with the connection here. Gesenius, however, supposes that the primary

idea is that of beating or pounding; and hence, of stunning by repeated blows. In either case the sense would be substantially the same - that of “stunning.” The idea given by our translators of making themselves “strange” was derived from the supposition that the word might be formed from נכר nakar - to be strange, foreign; to estrange, alienate, etc. For a more full examination of the word, the reader may consult Schultens, or Rosenmuller “in loco.”

Verse 4And be it indeed that I have erred - Admitting that I have erred, it is my own concern. You have a right to reproach and revile me in this manner.Mine error abideth with myself - I must abide the consequences of the error.” The design of this seems to be to reprove what he regarded as an improper and meddlesome interference with his concerns. Or it may be an expression of a willingness to bear all the consequences himself. He was willing to meet all the fair results of his own conduct.

Verse 5If, indeed, ye will magnify yourselves against me - This is connected with the next verse. The sense is, “all these calamities came from God. He has brought them upon me in a sudden and mysterious manner. In these circumstances you ought to have pity upon me; Job 19:21. Instead of magnifying yourselves against me, setting yourselves up as censors and judges, overwhelming me with reproaches and filling my mind with pain and anguish, you ought to show to me the sympathy of a friend.” The phrase, “magnify yourselves,” refers to the fact that they had assumed a tone of superiority and an authoritative manner, instead of showing the compassion due to a friend in affliction.And plead against me my reproach - My calamities as a cause of reproach. You urge them as a proof of the displeasure of God, and you join in reproaching me as a hypocrite. Instead of this, you should have shown compassion to me as a man whom God had greatly afflicted.

Verse 6Know now that God - Understand the case; and in order that they might, he goes into an extended description of the calamities which God had brought upon him. He wished them to be “fully” apprised of all that he had suffered at the hand of God.

Hath overthrown me - The word used here (עות ‛avath ) means to bend, to make crooked or curved; then to distort, prevert: them to overturn, to destroy; Isaiah 24:1; Lamentations 3:9. The meaning here is, that he had been in a state of prosperity, but that God had completely “reversed” everything.And hath compassed me with his net - Has sprung his net upon me as a hunter does, and I am caught. Perhaps there may be an allusion here to what Bildad said in Job 18:8 ff, that the wicked would be taken in his own snares. Instead of that, Job says that “God” had sprung the snare upon him - for reasons which he could not understand, but in such a manner as should move the compassion of his friends.

Verse 7Behold, I cry out of wrong - Margin, or “violence.” The Hebrew word (חמס chamas ) means properly violence. The violence referred to is that which was brought upon him by God. It is, indeed, harsh language; but it is not quite sure that he means to complain of God for doing him injustice. God had dealt with him in a severe or violent manner, is the meaning, and he had cried unto him for relief, but had cried in vain.No judgment - No justice. The meaning is, that he could obtain justice from no one God would not interpose to remove the calamities which he had brought upon him, and his friends would do no justice to his motives and character.

Verse 8He hath fenced up my way - This figure is taken from a traveler, whose way is obstructed by trees, rocks, or fences, so that he cannot get along, and Job says it was so with him. He was traveling along in a peaceful manner on the journey of life, and all at once obstructions were put in his path, so that he could not go farther. This does not refer, particularly, to his spiritual condition, if it does at all. It is descriptive of the obstruction of his plans, rather than of spiritual darkness or distress.And he hath set darkness in my paths - So that I cannot see - as if all around the traveler should become suddenly dark, so that he could not discern his way. The “language” here would well express the spiritual darkness which the friends of God sometimes experience, though it is by no means certain that Job referred to that. All the dealings of God are to them mysterious, and there is no light in the soul - and they are ready to sink down in despair.

Verse 9He hath stripped me of my glory - Everything which I had that contributed to my respectability and honor, he has taken away. My property, my health, my family, the esteem of my friend - all is gone.And taken the crown from my head - The crown is an emblem of honor and dignity - and Job says that God had removed all that contributed to his - and Job says that God had removed all that contributed to his former dignity; compare Proverbs 4:9; Proverbs 17:6; Ezekiel 16:12; Lamentations 5:16.

Verse 10He hath destroyed me on every side - He has left me nothing. The word which is used here is that which is commonly applied to which is used here is that which is commonly applied to destroying cities, towns, and houses. “Rosenmuller.”And I am gone - That is, I am near death. I cannot recover myself.And mine hope hath he removed like a tree - A tree, which is plucked up by the roots, and which does not grow again. That is, his hopes of life and happiness, of an honored old age, and of a continuance of his prosperity, had been wholly destroyed. This does not refer to his “religious” hope - as the word hope is often used now - but to his desire of future comfort and prosperity in this life. It does not appear but that his religious hope, arising from confidence in God, remainned unaffected.

Verse 11He hath also kindled his wrath - He is angry. Wrath in the Scriptures is usually represented as burning or inflamed - because like fire it destroys everything before it.And he counteth me unto him as one of his enemies - He treats me as he would an enemy. The same complaint he elsewhere makes; see Job 13:24; perhaps also in Job 16:9. We are not to understand Job here as admitting that “he” was an enemy of God. He constantly maintained that he was not, but he was constrained to admit that God “treated him” as if he were his enemy, and he could not account for it. “On this ground,” therefore, he now maintains that his friends ought to show him compassion, instead of trying to prove that he “was” an enemy of God; they ought to pity a man who was so strangely and mysteriously

afflicted, instead of increasing his sorrows by endeavoring to demonstrate that he was a man of eminent wickedness.

Verse 12His troops - The calamities which he had sent, and which are here represented as “armies” or “soldiers” to accomplish his work. It is not probable that he refers here to the bands of the Chaldeans and the Sabeans, that had robbed him of his property, but to the calamities that had come upon him, “as if” they were bands of robbers.And raise up their way - As and army that is about to lay siege to a city, or that is marching to attack it, casts up a way of access to it, and thus obtains every facility to take it; see Isaiah 40:3, note; Isaiah 57:14, note.And encamp round about my tabernacle - In the manner of an army besieging a city. Often an army is encamped in this manner for months or even years, in order to reduce the city by famine.My tabernacle - My tent; my dwelling.

Verse 13He hath put my brethren - This is a new source of afflication that he had not adverted to before, that God had caused all his children to be estranged from him - a calamity which he regarded as the crown of all his woes. The word rendered “my brethren” (אחי 'achay ) means means properly “my brothers” - but whether he means literally his brothers, or whether he designs it to be taken in a figuratie sense as denoting his intimate friends, or those of the same rank in life or calling, it is impossible now to determine.And mine acquaintance - My friends - on whom I relied in time of calamity.And verily estranged - They have forgotten me, and treat me as a stranger. What an accurate description is this of what often occurs! In prosperity a man will be surrounded by friends; but as soon as his prosperity is stripped away, and he is overwhelmed with calamity, they withdraw, and leave him to suffer alone. Proud of his acquaintance before, they now pass him by as a stranger, or treat him with cold civility, and when he “needs” their friendship, they are gone.

Verse 14My kinsfolk have failed - My neighbors (קרובי qarobay ), those who were near to me. It may refer to “nearness” of affinity, friendship, or residence. The

essential idea is that of “nearness” - whether by blood, affection, or vicinity. In Psalm 38:11, it denotes near friends.And my familiar friends - Those who knew me - מידעי myuda‛ay The allusion is to those who were “intimately” acquainted with him, or who were his bosom friends.

Verse 15They that dwell in mine house - The trials came to his very dwelling, and produced a sad estrangement there. The word used here גרי garey from גור gur means properly those who “sojourn” in a house for a little time. It may refer to guests, strangers, servants, clients, or tenants. The essential idea is, that they were not “permanent” residents, though for a time they were inmates of the family. Jerome renders the place, “Inquilini domus meoe - the tenants of my house.” The Septuagint, Γειτονες οιχιας Geitones oikias - neighbors. Schultens supposes it means “clients,” or those who were taken under the protection of a great man. He quotes from the Arabian poets to show that the word is used in that sense, and particularly a passage from the “Hamasa,” which he thus translates:Descendite sub alas meas, alasque gentis meae.Ut sim praesidium vobis quum pugna con seritur.Namque testamento injunxit mihi pater, ut reciperem vos hospites.Omnemque oppressorem a vobis propulsarem.There can be no doubt that Job refers to “dependents,” but whether in the capacity of servants, tenants, or clients, it is not easy to determine, and is not material. Dr. Good renders it “sojourners,” and this is a correct rendering of the word. This would be clearly the sense if the corresponding member of the parallelism were not “maids.” or female servants. “That” requires us to understand here persons who were “somehow” engaged in the service of Job. Perhaps his clients, or those who came for protection, were under obligation to some sort of service as the return of his patronage.And my maids - Female domestics. The Chaldee, however, renders this לחינתי - “my concubines;” but the correct reference is to female female servants.I am an alien - That is, to them. They cease to treat me as the head of the family.

Verse 16

I called my servant - He lost all respect for me, and paid me no attention.I entreated him - I ceased to expect “obedience,” and tried to see what “persuasion” would do. I ceased to be master in my own house.

Verse 17My breath is strange to my wife - Schultens renders this, “my breath is loathsome to my wife,” and so also Noyes. Wemyss translates it, “my own wife turns aside from my breath.” Dr Good, “my breath is scattered away by my wife.” The literal meaning is, “my breath is “strange” (זרה zarah ) to my wife;” and the idea is, that there had been such a change in him from his disease, that his breath was not that which she had been accustomed to breathe without offence, and that she now turned away from it as if it were the breath of a stranger. Jerome renders it, “Halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea - my wife abhors my breath.” It may be worthy of remark here, that but “one” wife of Job is mentioned - a remarkable fact, as he probably lived in an age when polygamy was common.I entreated her - I appealed to her by all that was tender in the domestic relation, but in vain. From this it would seem that even his wife had regarded him as an object of divine displeasure and had also left him to suffer alone.For the children‘s sake of mine own body - Margin, “my belly.” There is consideralbe variety in the interpretation of this passage. The word rendered “my own body” ( betenıy בטני) means literally, “my belly or womb;” and Noyes, Gesenius, and some others, suppose it means the children of his own mother! But assuredly this was scarcely an appeal that Job would be likely to make to his wife in such circumstances. There can be no impropriety in supposing that Job referred to himself, and that the word is used somewhat in the same sense as the word “loins” is in Genesis 35:11; Genesis 46:26; Exodus 1:5; 1 Kings 8:19 . Thus, understood, it would refer to his own children, and the appeal to his wife was founded on the relation which they had sustainded to them. Though they were now dead, he referred to their former united attachment to them, to the common affliction which they had experienced in their loss; and in view of all their former love to them, and all the sorrow which they had experienced in their death, he made an appeal to his wife to show him kindness, but in vain. Jerome renders this, “Orabam filios uteri mei.” The Septuagint, not understanding it, and trying to “make” sense of it, introduced a statement which is undoubtedly false, though Rosenmuller accords with it. “I called affectionately ( κολακευων kolakeuon ) the sons of my concubines” - υιους παλλακιδων μου huious

pallakidon mou But the whole meaning is evidently that he made a solemn and tender appeal to his wife, in view of all the joys and sorrows which they had experience as the united head of a family of now no more. What would reach the heart of an estranged wife, if such an appeal would not?

Verse 18Yea, young children - Margin, or “the wicked.” This difference between the text and the margin arises from the ambiguity of the original word - avıylıym‛ עוילים The word avıyl (whence our word “evil”) means sometimes the wicked, or‛ עויל the ungodly, as in Job 16:11. It may also mean a child, or suckling, (from עול ‛ul - to give milk, to suckle, 1 Samuel 7:7-10 ; Genesis 22:13: Isaiah 40:11; compare Isaiah 49:15; Isaiah 65:20,) and is doubtless used in this sense here. Jerome, however, renders it “stulti - fools.” The Septuagint, strangely enough, “They renounced me forever.” Dr. Good renders it, “Even the dependents.” So Schultens, Etiam clientes egentissimi - “even the most needy clients.” But the reference is probably to children who are represented as withholding from him the respect which was due to age.I arose, and they spake against me - “When I rise up, instead of regarding and treating me with respect, they make me an object of contempt and sport.” Compare the account of the respect which had formerly been shown him in Job 29:8.

Verse 19All my inward friends - Margin, “the men of my secret.” The meaning is those, who were admitted to the intimacy of friendship or who were permitted to be acquainted with his secret thoughts, purposes, and plans. The word uses here ( ;sod ) denotes properly “a couch, cushions, pillow,” on which one reclines סודthen a “divan,” a circle of persons sitting together for consultation or conversation; and hence, it refers to those who are sitting together in intimate counsel, (see Job 15:8, note; Job 29:4, note) and then familiar conversation, intimacy. Here the phrase “men of my intimacy” (סודי sodıy ) denotes those who were admitted to intimate friendship. All such persons had now forsaken him, and turned against him.

Verse 20

My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh - The meaning of this probably is, “my skin and flesh are dried up so that the bone seems adhere to the skin, and so tht the form of the bone becomes visible.” It is designed to denote a state of great emaciation, and describes an effect which we often see.And I am escaped with the skin of my teeth - A very difficult expression, and which has greatly perplexed commentators, and on whose meaning they are by no means agreed. Dr. Good renders it, “and in the skin of my teeth am I dissolved;” but what that means is as difficult of explanation as the original. Noyes, “and I have scarcely escaped with the skin of my teeth.” Herde, (as translated by Marsh,) “and scarcely the skin in my teeth have I brought away as a spoil.” He says that “the figure is taken from the prey which wild beasts carry in their teeth; his skin is his poor and wretched body, which alone he had escaped with. His friends are represented as carnivorous animals which gnaw upon his skin, upon the poor remnant of life;” but the Hebrew will not bear this construction. Poole observes, quaintly enough, that it means, “I am scarcely sound and whole and free from sores in any part of my skin, except that of my jaws, which holdeth and covereth the roots of my teeth. This being, as divers observe, the devil‘s policy, to leave his mouth untouched, that be might more freely express his mind, and vent his blasphemies against God, which he supposed sharp pain would force him to do.” Schultens has mentioned four different interpretations given to the phrase, none of which seems to be perfectly satisfactory. They are the following:(1) That it means that the skin “about” the teeth alone was preserved, or the gums and the lips, so that he had the power of speaking, though every other part was wasted away, and this exposition is given, accompanied with the suggestion that his faculty of speech was preserved entire by Satan, in order that he might be “able” to utter the language of complaint and blasphemy against God.(2) That he was emaciated and exhausted completely, “except” the skin about his teeth, that is, his lips, and that by them he was kept alive; that if it were not for them he could not breathe, but must soon expire.(3) That the teeth themselves had fallen out by the force of disease, and that nothing was left but the gums. This opinion Schultens himself adopts. The image, be says, is taken from pugilists, whose teeth are knocked out by each other; and the meaning he supposes to be, that Job had been treated by his disease in the same manner. So violent had it been that he had lost all his teeth and nothing was left but his gums.

(4) A fourth opinion is, that the reference is to the “enamel” of the teeth, and that the meaning is, that such was the force and extent of his afflictions that all his teeth became hollow and were decayed, leaving only the enamel. It is difficult to determine the true sense amidst a multitude of learned conjectures; but probably the most simple and easy interpretation is the best. It may mean that he was “almost” consumed. Disease had preyed upon his frame until he was wasted away. Nothing was left but his lips, or his gums; he was just able to speak, and that was all. So Jerome renders it, delicta sunt tantummodo labia circa dentes meos. Luther renders it, und kann meine Zahne mit der Haut nicht bedecken - “and I cannot cover my teeth with the skin;” that is, with the lips.

Verse 21Have pity on me - A tender, pathetic cry for sympathy. “God has afflicted me, and stripped me of all my comforts, and I am left a poor, distressed, forsaken man. I make my appeal to you, my friends, and entreat you to have pity; to sympathize with me, and to sustain me by the words of consolation.” One would have supposed that these words would have gone to the heart, and that we should hear no more of their bitter reproofs. But far otherwise was the fact.The hand of God hath touched me - Hath smitten me; or is heavy upon me. The meaning is, that he had been subjected to great calamities by God, and that it was right to appeal now to his friends, and to expect their sympathy and compassion. On the usual meaning of the word here rendered, “hath touched” (.naga‛ ), see the notes at Isaiah 53:4 נגע naga‛ah from נגעה

Verse 22Why do ye persecute me as God? - As God has done. That is, without giving me any reason for it; accusing me of crimes without proof, and condeming me without mitigation. That there is here an improper reflection on God, will be apparent to all. It accords with what Job frequently expresses where he speaks of him as judging him severly, and is on of the instances which prove that he was not entirely perfect.And are not satisfied with my flesh - That is, are not contented that my “body” is subjected to inexpressible torment, and is wholly wasting away, but add to this the torment of the soul. Why is it not enough that my “body” is thus tormented without adding the severer tortures of the mind?

Verse 23Oh that my words were now written! - Margin, as in Hebrew, “Who will give;” a common mode of expressing desire among the Hebrews. This expression of desire introduces one of the most important passages in the book of Job. It is the language of a man who felt that injustice was done by his friends, and that he was not likely to have justice done him by that generation. He was charged with hypocrisy; his motives were called in question; his solemn appeals, and his arguments to assert his innocence, were disregarded; and in this state of mind he expresses the earnest wish that his expressions might be permanently recorded, and go down to far distant times. He desired that what he had said might be preserved, that future ages might be able to judge between him and his accusers, and to know the justice of his cause. The desire thus expressed has been granted, and a more permanent record bas been made than if, in accordance with his request, his sentiments had been engraved on lead or stone.Oh that they were printed! - It is clear that this expression may convey wholly an erroneous idea. The art of “printing” was then unknown; and the passage has no allusion to that art. The original word (חקק chaqaq ) means properly, to cut in, to hew; then to cut - e. g. a sepulchre in a rock, Isaiah 22:16; then to cut, or engrave letters on a tablet of lead or stone, Isaiah 30:8; Ezekiel 4:1; and generally it implies the notion of engraving, or inscribing on a plate with an engraving tool. Anciently books were made of materials which allowed of this mode of making a record. Stone would probably be the first material; and then plates of metal, leaves, bark, skins, etc. The notion of engraving, however, is the proper idea here.In a book - - besepher The word בספר ספר drow sepher is derived from ספר saphar In Arabic the kindred word shafar means to scratch, to scrape; and hence, to engrave, write, record - and the idea was originally that ofinsculping or engraving on a stone. Hence, the word comes to denote a book, of any materials, or made in any form. Pliny, speaking of the materials of ancient books, says, Olim in palmarum foliis scriptitatum, et libris quarundam arborum; postea publira monumenta plumbeis voluminibus, mox et privata lintels confici coepta aut ceris. Lib. xiii. 11. “At first men wrote on the leaves of the palm, or the bark of certain trees; but afterward public documents were preserved in leaden volumes (or rolls), and those of a private nature on wax or linen.” “Montfaucon purchased at Rome, in 1699, an ancient book entirely composed of lead. It was about four inches long, and three inches wide: and not only were the two pieces that formed

the cover, and the leaves, six in number, of lead, but also the stick inserted through the rings to hold the leaves together, as well as the hinges and nails. It contained Egyptian Gnostic figures and unintelligible writing. Brass, as more durable, was used for the inscriptions designed to last the longest, such as treaties, laws, and alliances. These public documents were, however, usually written on large tablets. The style for writing on brass and other hard substances was sometimes tipped with diamond.”The meaning of the word here is evidently a record made on stone or lead - for so the following verses indicate. The art of writing or engraving was known in the time of Job; but I do not know that there is evidence that the art of writing on leaves, bark, or vellum was yet understood. As books in the form in which they are now were then unknown; as there is no evidence that at that time anything like volumes or rolls were possessed; as the records were probably preserved on tablets of stone or lead; and as the entire description here pertains to something that was engraved; and as this sense is conveyed by the Arabic verb from which the word ספר sepher book, is derived, the word tablet, or some kindred word, will better express the sense of the original than book - and I have, therefore, used it in the translation.Assyrian records are found generally in stone or clay; and the latter being more easily and speedily engraven with a triangular instrument, was more frequently employed.(1) An Assyrian terra-cotta cylinder from Khorsabad contains the annals of the reign of Sargon. It is dated about 721 B.C.(2) A hexagonal terra cotta cylinder from Koyunjik contains the annals of the first eight years of the reign of Sennacherib (702 to 694 B.C.), with an account of the expedition against Hezekiah.(3) The inscription shows Assyrian scribes making notes of prisoners, heads of slain, spoils, etc. It comes from Koyunjik.

Verse 24That they were graven - Cut in, or sculptured - as is done on stones. That they might become thus a permanent record.With an iron pen - A stylus, or an engraving tool - for so the word (עט ‛et ) means. The instrument formerly used for writing or engraying was a small, sharp-pointed piece of iron or steel, that was employed to mark on lead or stone - somewhat in the form of small graying tools now. When the writing was on wax,

the instrument was made with a flat head, that it could be obliterated by pressing it on or passing it over the wax.The reason why Job mentions the iron pen here is, that he wished a perment record. He did not desire one made with paint or chalk, but one which would convey his sentiments down to future times.And lead - That is, either engraved on lead, or more probably with lead. It was customary to cut the letters deep in stone, and then to fill fill them up with lead, so that the record became more permanent. This I take to be the meaning here. The Hebrew will scarcely allow of the supposition that Job meant that the records should be made on plates of lead - though such plates were used early, but perhaps not until after the time of Job.In the rock - It was common, at an early period, to make inscriptions on the smooth surface of a rock. Perhaps the first thai were made were on stones, which were placed as way marks, or monuments over the dead - as we now make such inscriptions on grave-stones. Then it became common to record any memorable transaction - as a battle - on stones or rocks; and perhaps, also, sententious and apothegmatical remarks were recorded in this manner, to admonish travelers, or to transmit them to posterity. Numerous inscriptions of this kind are found by travelers in the East, on tombs, and on rocks in the desert. All that can be appropriate here is a notice of such early inscriptions of that kind in Arabia, as would render it probable that they existed in the time of Job, or such as indicate great antiquity. Happily we are at no loss for such inscriptions on rocks in the country where Job lived.The Wady Mokatta, the cliffs of which bear these inscriptions, is a valley entering Wady Sheikh, and bordering the upper regions of the Sinai mountains. It extends for about three hours‘ march, and in most places its rocks present abrupt cliffs, twenty or thirty feet high. From these cliffs large masses have separated, and lie at the bottom of the valley. The cliffs and rocks are thickly covered with inscriptions, which are continued at intervals of a few hundred paces only, for at least the distance of two hours and a half. Burckhardt, in his travels from Akaba to Cairo, by Mount Sinai, observed many inscriptions on the rocks, part of which he has copied. See his Travels in Syria, Lond. Ed. pp. 506,581,582,606,613,614. Pococke, who also visited the regions of Mount Sinai in 1777, has given a description of the inscriptions which he saw on the rocks at Mount Sinai. Vol. i. 148, be says,” There are on many of the rocks, both near these mountains and in the road, a great many inscriptions in an ancient character; many of them I

copied, and observed that most of them were not cut, but stained, making the granite of a lighter color, and where the stone had scaled, I could see the stain had sunk into the stone.”Numerous specimens of these inscriptions may be seen in Pococke, vol. i. p. 148. These inscriptions were also observed by Robinson and Smith, and are described by them in Biblical Researches, vol. i. 108,118,119,123,161,167. They are first mentioned by Cosmas, about 535 a.d. He supposed them to be the work of the ancient Hebrews, and says that certain Jews, who had read them, explained them to him as noting “the journey of such an one, out of such a tribe, in such a year and month.” They have also been noticed by many early travelers, as Neitzschitz, p. 149; Moncongs, i. p. 245; and also by Niebuhr in his Reisebeschr. i. p. 250. The copies of them given by Pococke and Niebuhr are said to be very imperfect; those by Seetzen are better, and those made by Burckhardt are tolerably accurate. Rob. Bib. Research. i. 553. A large number of them have been copied and published by Mr. Grey, in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. iii. pt. 1, Lond. 1832; consisting of one hundred and seventy-seven in the unknown character, nine in Greek, and one in Latin. These inscriptions, which so long excited the curiosity of travelers, have been recently deciphered (in the year 1839) by Professor Beer, of the University of Leipzig. He had turned his attention to them in the year 1833, but without success.In the year 1839 his attention was again turned to them, and after several months of the most persevering application, he succeeded in making out the alphabet, and was enabled to read all the inscriptions which have been copied, with a good degree of accuracy. According to the results of this examination, the characters of the Sinaitic inscriptions belong to a distinct and independent alphabet. Some of the letters are wholly unique; the others have more or less affinity with the Palmyrene, and particularly with the Estrangelo and the Cufic. They are written from right to left. The contempts of the inscriptions, so far as examined, consist only of proper names, preceded by a word which is usually שלם shalom peace, though occasionally some other word is used. In one or two instances the name is followed by a sentence which has not yet been deciphered. The names are those common in Arabic. It is a remarkable fact that not one Jewish or Christian name has been found.The question, as to the writers of these inscriptions, receives very little light from their contents. A word at the end of some of them may be so read as to affirm

that they were pilgrims, and this opinion Professor Beer adopts; but this is not certain. That the writers were Christians, seems apparent from many of the crosses connected with the inscriptions. The age, also, of the inscriptions, receives no light from their conents, as no date has yet been read. Beer supposes that the greater part of them could not have been written earlier than the fourth century. Little light, therefore, is cast upon the question who wrote them; what was their design; in what age they were written, or who were the pilgrims who wrote them. See Rob. Bib. Research. i. 552-556. That there were such records in the time of Job, is probable.

Verse 25For I know that my Redeemer liveth - There are few passages in the Bible which have excited more attention than this, or in respect to which the opinions of expositors have been more divided. The importance of the passage Job 19:25-27 has contributed much to the anxiety to understand its meaning - since, if it refers to the Messiah, it is one of the most valuable of all the testimonials now remaining of the early faith on that subject. The importance of the passage will justify a somewhat more extended examination of its meaning than it is customary to give in a commentary of a single passage of Scripture; and I shall(1.) Give the views entertained of it by the translators of the ancient and some of the modern versions;(2.) Investigate the meaning of the words and phrases which occur in it; and(3.) State the arguments, pro and con, for its supposed reference to the Messiah.The Vulgate renders it, “For I know that my Redeemer - Redemptor meus - lives, and that in the last day I shall rise from the earth; and again, I shall be enveloped - circumdabor - with my skin, and in my flesh shall I see my God. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another - this, my hope, is laid up in my bosom.” The Septuagint translate it, “For I know that he is Eternal who is about to deliver me - ο εκλυειν με μελλων ho ekluein me mellon - to raise again upon earth this skin of mine, which draws up these things - το αναντλουν ταυτα to anantloun tauta (the meaning of which, I believe, no one has ever been able to divine.) For from the Lord these things have happened to me of which I alone am conscious, which my eye has seen, and not another, and which have all been done to me in my bosom.” Thompson‘s trans. in part. The Syriac is in the main a simple and correct rendering of the Hebrew. “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the consummation he will be revealed upon the earth, and after my skin I

shall bless myself in these things, and after my flesh. If my eyes shall see God, I shall see light.” The Chaldee accords with our version, except in one phrase. “And afterward my skin shall be inflated, ( אתפת משכי ) - then in my flesh shall I see God.” It will be seen that some perplexity was felt by the authors of the ancient versions in regard to the passage. Much more has been felt by expositors. Some notices of the views of the moderns, in regard to particular words and phrases, will be given in the exposition.I know - I am certain. On that point Job desires to express the utmost confidence. His friends might accuse him of hypocrisy - they might charge him with lack of piety, and he might not be able to refute all that they said; but in the position referred to here he would remain fixed, and with this firm confidence he would support his soul. It was this which he wished to have recorded in the eternal rocks, that the record might go down to future times. If after ages should be made acquainted with his name and his sufferings - if they should hear of the charges brought against him and of the accusations of impiety which had been so harshly and unfeelingly urged, he wished that this testimony might be recorded, to show that he had unwavering confidence in God. He wished this eternal record to be made, to show that he was not a rejecter of truth; that he was not an enemy of God; that he had a firm confidence that God would yet come forth to vindicate him, and would stand up as his friend. It was a testimony worthy of being held in everlasting remembrance, and one which has had, and will have, a permanency much greater than he anticipated.That my Redeemer - This important word has been variously translated. Rosenmuller and Schultens render it, vindicem; Dr. Good, Redeemer; Noyes and Wemyss, vindicator; Herder, avenger, Luther, Erloser- Redeemer; Chaldee and Syriac, Redeemer. The Hebrew word, גאל go'al is from גאל ga'al “to redeem, to ransom.” It is applied to the redemption of a farm sold, by paying back the price, Leviticus 25:25; Rth 4:4 , Rth 4:6 ; to anything consecrated to God that is redeemed by paying its value, Leviticus 27:13, and to a slave that is ransomed, Leviticus 25:48-49. The word ,go'el is applied to one who redeems a field גאל Leviticus 25:26; and is often applied to God, who had redeemed his people from bondage, Exodus 6:6; Isaiah 43:1. See the notes at Isaiah 43:1; and on the general meaning of the word, see the notes at Job 3:5. Among the Hebrews, the go'el occupied an important place, as a blood-avenger, or a vindicator of גאלviolated rights.See Numbers 35:12, Numbers 35:19, Numbers 35:21, Numbers 35:24-25,

Numbers 35:27; Deuteronomy 19:6-12; Rth 4:1 , Rth 4:6 ,Rth 4:8 ; Joshua 20:3. The word ; go'el is rendered kinsman, Rth 4:1 , Rth 4:3 ,Rth 4:6 , Rth 4:8 גאל near kinsman, Rth 3:9 , Rth 3:12 ; avenger, Numbers 35:12; Joshua 20:3; Redeemer, Job 19:25; Psalm 19:14; Isaiah 47:4; Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:17; Isaiah 54:8; Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 49:26; Isaiah 60:16; kin, Leviticus 25:25, et al. Moses found the office of the גאל go'el or avenger, already instituted, (see Michaelis‘s Commentary on laws of Moses, section cxxxvi.) and he adopted it into his code of laws. It would seem, therefore, not improbable that it prevailed in the adjacent countries in the time of Job, or that there may have been a reference to this office in the place before us. The גאל go'el is first introduced in the laws of Moses, as having a right to redeem a mortgaged field, Leviticus 25:25-26; and then as buying a right, as kinsman, to the restoration of anything which had been iniquitously acquired, Numbers 5:8.Then he is often referred to in the writings of Moses as the blood-avenger, or the kinsman of one who was slain, who would have a right to pursue the murderer, and to take vengeance on him, and whose duty it would be to do it. This right of a near relative to pursues murderer, and to take vengeance, seems to have been one that was early conceded every where. It was so understood among the American Indians, and probably prevails in all countries before there are settled laws for the trial and punishment of the guilty. It was a right, however, which was liable to great abuse. Passion would take the place of reason, the innocent would be suspected, and the man who had slain another in self-defense was as likely to be pursued and slain as he who had been guilty of willful murder. To guard against this, in the unsettled state of jurisprudence, Moses appointed cities of refuge, where the man-slayer might flee until he could bare a fair opportunity of trial.It was impossible to put an end at once to the office of the גאל go'el The kinsman, the near relative, would feel himself called on to pursue the murderer; but the man-slayer might flee into a sacred city, and remain until he had a fair trial; see Deuteronomy 19:6-7. It was a humane arrangement to appoint cities of refuge, where the man who had slain another might be secure until he had an opportunity of trial - an arrangement which eminently showed the wisdom of Moses. On the rights and duties of the go'el the גאל reader may consult Michaelis‘s Com. on the laws of Moses, art. 136,137. His essential office was that of a vindicator - one who took up the cause of a friend, whether that friend was murdered, or was oppressed, or was wronged in any way. Usually, perhaps

always, this pertained to the nearest male kin, and was instituted for the aid of the defenceless and the wronged.In times long subsequent, a somewhat similar feeling gave rise to the institution of chivalry, and the voluntary defenee of the innocent and oppressed. It cannot now be determined whether Job in this passage has reference to the office of the go'el as it גאל was afterward understood, or whether it existed in his time. It seems probable that the office would exist at the earliest periods of the world, and that in the rudest stages of society the nearest of kin would feel himself called on to vindicate the wrong done to one of the feebler members of his family. The word properly denotes, therefore, either vindicator, or redeemer; and so far as the term is concerned, it may refer either to God, as an avenger of the innocent, or to the future Redeemer - the Messiah. The meaning of this word would be met, should it be understood as referring to God, coming forth in a public manner to vindicate the cause of Job against all the charges and accusations of his professed friends; or to God, who would appear as his vindicator at the resurrection; or to the future Messiah - the Redeemer of the body and the soul. No argument in favor of either of these interpretations can be derived from the use of the word.Liveth - Is alive - - chay Septuagint, immortal חי αενναος aennaos He seems now to have forsaken me as if he were dead, but my faith is unwavering in him as a living vindicator. A similar expression occurs in Job 16:19. “My witness is in heaven, and my record is on high.” It is a declaration of entire confidence in God, and will beautifully convey the emotions of the sincere believer in all ages. He may be afflicted with disease, or the loss of property, or be forsaken by his friends, or persecuted by his foes, but if he can look up to heaven and say, “I know that my Redeemer live‘s,” he will have peace.And that he shall stand - He will stand up, as one does who undertakes the cause of another. Jerome has rendered this as though it referred to Job,” And in the last day I shall rise from the earth” - de terra surrecturus sum - as if it referred to the resurrection of the body. But this is not in accordance with the Hebrew, dequm - “he shall stand.” There is clearly no necessary reference in this דקוםword to the resurrection. The simple meaning is, “he shall appear, or manifest himself, as the vindicator of my cause.”At the latter day - The word “day” here is supplied by the translators. The Hebrew is, - ye'acharyon יאחרין and after, afterward, hereafter, at length. The word literally means, hinder, hinder part - opposite to foremost, former. It is

applied to the Mediterranean sea, as being behind when the eye of the geographer was supposed to be turned to the East; (see the notes at Job 18:20;) then it means after, later, applied to a generation or age. Psalm 48:14, to a day - to future times - ( יום אחרין yom 'acharyon ), Proverbs 31:25; Isaiah 30:8. All that this word necessarily expresses here is, that at some future period this would occur. It does not determine when it would be. The language would apply to any future time, and might refer to file coming of the Redeemer, to the resurrection, or to some subsequent period in the life of Job. The meaning is, that however long he was to suffer, however protracted his calamities were, and were likely to be, be had the utmost confidence that God would at length, or at some future time, come forth to vindicate him. The phrase, “the latter day,” has now acquired a kind of technical meaning, by which we naturally refer it to the day of judgment. But there is no evidence that it has any such reference here. On the general meaning of phrases of this kind, however, the reader may consult my notes at Isaiah 2:2.Upon the earth - Hebrew על־עפר ‛al ‛aphar - upon the dust. Why the word dust is used, instead of ארץ 'erets earth, is unknown. It may be because the word dust is emphatic, as being contrasted with heaven, the residence of the Deity. Noyes. What kited of an appearance God would assume when he should thus come forth, or how he would manifest himself as the vindicator and Redeemer of Job, he does not intimate, and conjecture would be useless. The words do not necessarily imply any visible manifestation - though such a manifestation would not be forbidden by the fair construction of the passage. I say, they do not necessarily imply it; see Psalm 12:5, “For the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, (Hebrew: stand up - aqum saith' אקום the Lord.” Psalm 44:26, “arise (Hebrew קומה qumah - stand up) for our help.” Whether this refers to any visible manifestation in behalf of Job is to be determined in other words than by the mere meaning of this word.

Verse 26And though - Margin, Or, after I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. This verse has given not less perplexity than the preceding. Noyes renders it,And though with this skin this body be wasted away,Yet in my flesh shall I see God.Dr. Good renders it,And, after the disease hath destroyed my skin,

That in my flesh I shall see God.Rosenmuller explains it, “And when after my skin (scil. is consumed and destroyed) they consume (scil. those corroding, or consuming, that is, it is corroded, or broken into fragments) this, that is, this structure of my bones - my body (which he does not mention, because it was so wasted away that it did not deserve to be called a body) - yet without my flesh - with my whole body consumed, shall I see God.” He translates it,Et quum post cutem meam hoc fuerit consumptum,Tamen absque carne mea videbo Deum.The Hebrew is literally, “and after my skin.” Gesenius translates it, “After they shall have destroyed my skin, this shall happen - that I will see God.” Herder renders it,Though they tear and devour this my skin,Yet in my living body shall I see God.The fair and obvious meaning, I think, is that which is conveyed by our translation. Disease had attacked his skin. It was covered with ulcers, and was fast consuming; compare Job 2:8; Job 7:5. This process of corruption and decay he had reason to expect would go on until all would be consumed. But if it did, he would hold fast his confidence in God. He would believe that he would come forth as his vindicator, and he would still put his trust in him.Worms - This word is supplied by our translators. There is not a semblance of it in the original. That is, simply, “they destroy;” where the verb is used impersonally, meaning that it would be destroyed; The agent by which this would be done is not specified. The word rendered “destroy” naqaphu from נקפו נקף naqaph means “to cut, to strike, to cut down” (compare the notes at Job 1:5, for the general meaning of the word), and here means to destroy; that is, that the work of destruction might go on until the frame should be wholly wasted away. It is not quite certain that the word here would convey the idea that he expected to die. It may mean that he would become entirely emaciated, and all his flesh be gone. There is nothing, however, in the word to show that he did not expect to die - and perhaps that would be the most obvious and proper interpretation.This body - The word body is also supplied by the translators. The Hebrew is simply זאת zo'th - this. Perhaps he pointed to his body - for there can be no doubt that his body or flesh is intended. Rosenmuller supposes that he did not mention it, because it was so emaciated that it did not deserve to be called a body.

Yet in my flesh - Hebrew “From my flesh” - mıbasarıy Herder renders מבשרי this, “In my living body.” Rosenmuller, absque carne mea - “without my flesh;” and explains it as meaning, “my whole body being consumed, I shall see God.” The literal meaning is, “from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God.” It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition ב (b ) - but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him; that is, clearly, as Rosenmuller has expressed it, tho‘ my body be consumed, and I have no flesh, I shall see him. Disease might carry its fearful ravages through all his frame, until it utterly wasted away, yet; he had confidence that he would see his vindicator and Redeemer on the earth. It cannot be proved that this refers to the resurrection of that body, and indeed the natural interpretation is against it. It is, rather, that though without a body, or though his body should all waste away, he would see God as his vindicator. He would not always be left overwhelmed in this manner with calamities and reproaches. He would be permitted to see God coming forth as his Goal or Avenger, and manifesting himself as his friend. Calmly, therefore, he would bear these reproaches and trials, and see his frame waste away, for it would not always be so - God would yet undertake and vindicate his cause.Shall I see God - He would be permitted to behold him as his friend and avenger. What was the nature of the vision which he anticipated, it is not possible to determine with certainty. If he expected that God would appear in some remarkable manner to judge the world and to vindicate the cause of the oppressed; or that he would come forth in a special manner to vindicate his cause; or if he looked to a general resurrection, and to the trial on that day, the language would apply to either of these events.

Verse 27Whom I shall see for myself - It will not come to be by mere report. I shall not merely hear of the decision of God in my favor, but I shall myself behold him. He will at length come forth, and I shall be permitted to see him, and shall have the delightful assurance that he settles this controversy in my favor, and declares that I am his friend. Job was thus permitted to see God Job 42:5, and hear his voice in his favor. He spake to him from the whirlwind Job 38:1, and pronounced the sentence in his favor which he had desired.And not another - Margin, a stranger. So in the Hebrew. The meaning is, that his own eyes would be permitted to see him. He would have the satisfaction of

seeing God himself, and of hearing the sentence in his favor. That expectation he deemed worthy of a permanent record, and wished it transmitted to future times, that in his darkest days and severest trials - when God overwhelmed him, and man forsook him, he still firmly maintained his confidence in God, and his belief that he would come forth to vindicate his cause.Though my reins - The margin renders this, “my reins within me are consumed with earnest desire for that day.” Noyes translates it, “For this my soul panteth within me.” Herder,I shall see him as my deliverer,Mine eyes shall behold him, as mine,For whom my heart so long fainted.So Wemyss, “My reins faint with desire of his arrival.” Jerome renders it (Vulgate), reposita est hoec spes mea in sinu meo - “this, my hope, is laid up in my bosom.” The Septuagint, “All which things have been done - συντετελεσται suntetelestai - in my bosom,” but what they understood by this it is difficult to say. The word rendered “reins” kılyah - or in the plural כליה kılyoth - in which כליות form only it is found), means properly the reins, or the kidneys Job 16:13. and then comes to denote the inward parts, and then the seat of the desires and affections, because in strong emotions the inward parts are affected. We speak of the heart as the seat of the affections, but with no more propriety than the Hebrews did of the upper viscera in general, or of the reins. In the Scriptures the heart and the reins are united as the seat of the affections. Thus, Jeremiah 11:20, God “trieth the reins and the heart;” Jeremiah 17:10; Jeremiah 20:12; Psalm 7:10. I see no reason why the word here may not be used to denote the viscera in general, and that the idea may be, that he felt that his disease was invading the seat of life, and his body, in all its parts, was wasting away. Our word vitals, perhaps, expresses the idea.Be consumed - Gesenius renders this, “Pine away.” So Noyes, Wemyss, and some others. But the proper meaning of the word is, to consume, to be wasted, to be destroyed. The word kalah strictly means to finish, complete, render כלה entire; and thence has the notion of completion or finishing - whether by making a thing perfect, or by destroying it. It is used with reference to the eyes that fail or waste away with weeping, Lamentations 2:11, or to the spirit or heart. as fainting with grief and sorrow. Psalm 84:3; Psalm 143:7; Psalm 69:4. It is used often in the sense of destroying. Jeremiah 16:4; Ezra 5:13; Psalm 39:11; Isaiah 27:10; Isaiah 49:4; Genesis 41:30; Jeremiah 14:12; et soepe al. This, I think, is the

meaning here. Job affirms that his whole frame, external and internal, was wasting away, yet he had confidence that he would see God.Within me - Margin, in my bosom. So the Hebrew. The word bosom is used here as we use the word chest - and is not improperly rendered “within me.” In view of this exposition of the words, I would translate the whole passage as follows:For I know that my Avenger liveth,And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;And though after my skin this (flesh) shall be destroyed,Yet even without my flesh shall I see God:Whom I shall see for myself,And mine eyes shall behold, and not another,Though my vitals are wasting away within me.It has already been observed, that very various views have been entertained of this important passage of Scripture. The great question has been, whether it refers to the Messiah, and to the resurrection of the dead, or to an expectation which Job had that God would come forth as his vindicator in some such way as he is declared afterward to have done. It may be proper, therefore. to give a summary of the arguments by which these opinions would be defended. I have not found many arguments stated for the former opinion, though the belief is held by many, but they would be probably such as the following: - I. Arguments which would be adduced to show that the passage refers to the Messiah and to the future resurrection of the dead.(1) The language which is used is such as would appropriately describe such events. This is undoubted, though more so in our translation than in the original; but the original would appropriately express such an expectation.(2) The impression which it would make on the mass of readers, and particularly those of plain, sober sense, who had no theory to defend. It is probably a fact, that the great body of the readers of the Bible suppose that it has such a reference. It is usually a very strong presumptive proof of the correctness of an interpretation of Scripture when this can be alleged in its favor, though it is not an infallible guide.(3) The probability that some knowledge of the Messiah would prevail in Arabia in the time of Job. This must be admitted, though it cannot be certainly demonstrated; compare Numbers 24:17. The amount of this is, that it could not be regarded as so improbable that any such knowledge would prevail as to demonstrate certainly that this could not be referred to the Messiah.

(4) The probability that there would be found in this book some allusion to the Redeemer - the great hope of the ancient saints, and the burden of the Old Testament But this is not conclusive or very weighty, for there are several of the books of the Old Testament which contain no distinct allusion to him.(5) The pertinency of such a view to the case, and its adaptedness to give to Job the kind of consolation which he needed. There can be no doubt of the truth of this; but the question is, not what would have imparted consolation, but what knowledge he actually had. There are many of the doctrines of the Christian religion which would have been eminently fitted to give comfort in such circumstances to a man in affliction, which it would be exceedingly unreasonable to expect to find in the book of Job, and which it is certain were wholly unknown to him and his friends.(6) The importance which he himself attached to his declaration, and the solemnity of the manner in which he introduced it. His profession of faith on the subject he wished to have engraved in the eternal rocks. he wished it transmitted to future times. He wished a permanent record to be made, that succeeding ages might read it, and see the ground of his confidence and his hope. This, to my mind, is the strongest argument which has occurred in favor of the opinion that the passage refers to the Redeemer and to the resurrection. These are all the considerations which have occurred to me, or which I have found stated, which would go to sustain the position that the passage referred to the resurrection. Some of them have weight; but the prevailing opinion, that the passage has such a reference. will be found to be sustained, probably, more by the feelings of piety than by solid argument and sound exegesis. It is favored, doubtless, by our common version, and there can be no doubt that the translators supposed that it had such a reference.II. On the other hand, weighty considerations are urged to show that the passage does not refer to the Messiah, and to the resurrection of the dead. They are such as the following:(1) The language, fairly interpreted and translated, does not necessarily imply this. It is admitted that our translators had this belief, and without doing intentional or actual violence to the passage, or designing to make a forced translation, they have allowed their feelings to give a complexion to their language which the original does not necessarily convey. Hence, the word “Redeemer,” which is now used technically to denote the Messiah, is employed, though the original “may,” and commonly “does,” have a much more general

signification; and hence, the phrase “at the latter day,” also a technical phrase, occurs, though the original means no more than “afterward” or “after this;” and hence, they have employed the phrase “in my flesh,” though the original means no more than “though my flesh be all wasted away.” The following I believe to express fairly the meaning of the Hebrew:” I know that my deliverer, or avenger, lives, and that he will yet appear in some public manner on the earth; and though after the destruction of my skin, the process of corruption shall go on until “all” my flesh shall be destroyed, yet when my flesh is entirely wasted away, I shall see God; I shall have the happiness of seeing him for myself, and beholding him with my own eyes, even though my very vitals shall be consumed. He will come and vindicate me and my cause. I have such confidence in his justice, that I do not doubt that he will yet show himself to be the friend of him who puts his trust in him.”(2) It is inconsistent with the argument, and the whole scope and connection of the book, to suppose that this refers to the Messiah and to the resurrection of the body after death. The book of Job is strictly an “argument” - a train of clear, consecutive reasoning. It discusses a great inquiry about the doctrines of divine Providence and the divine dealings with people. The three friends of Job maintained that God deals with men strictly according to their character in this life - that eminent wickedness is attended with eminent suffering; and that when people experience any great calamity, it is proof of eminent wickedness. All this they meant to apply to Job, and all this Job denied. Yet he was perplexed and confounded. He did not know what to do with the “facts” in the case; but still he felt embarrassed. All that he could say was, that God would “yet” come forth and show himself to be the friend of those who loved him and that though they suffered now, yet he had confidence that be would appear for their relief.Now, had they possessed the knowledge of the doctrine of the “resurrection of the dead,” it would have ended the whole debate. it would not only have met all the difficulties of Job, but we should have found him perpetually recurring to it - placing it in every variety of form - appealing to it as relieving his embarrassments, and as demanding an answer from his friends. But, on the supposition that this refers to the resurrection, it is remarkable that the passage here stands alone. Job never adverted to it before, but allowed himself to be greatly embarrassed for the lack of just such an argument, and he never refers to it again. He goes on to argue again “as if” he believed no such doctrine. He does not ask his friends to notice this: he expresses no surprise that they should pass

by, in entire neglect, an argument which “must have been seen” to be decisive of the controversy. It is equally unaccountable that his friends should not have noticed it.If the doctrine of the resurrection was true, it settled the case. It rendered all their arguments worthless, and would have met the case just as we meet similar cases now. It was incumbent on them to show that there was no evidence of the truth of any such doctrine as the resurrection, and that this could not be urged to meet their arguments. Yet they never allude to so important and unanswerable an argument, and evidently did not suppose that Job referred to any such event. It is equally remarkable that neither Elihu nor God himself, in the close of the book, make any such allusion, or refer to the doctrine of the resurrection at all, as meeting the difficulties of the case. In the argument with which the Almighty is represented as closing the book, the whole thing is resolved into a matter of “sovereignty,” and people are required to submit because God is great, and is inscrutable in his ways - not because the dead will be raised, and the inequalities of the present life will be recompensed in a future state. The doctrine of a “resurrection” - a great and glorious doctrine, such as, if once suggested, could not have escaped the profound attention of these sages - would have solved the whole difficulty; and yet, confessedly, it is never alluded to by them - never introduced - never examined - never admitted or rejected - never becomes a matter of inquiry, and is never referred to by God himself as settling the matter - never occurs in the book in any form, unless it be in this. This is wholly unaccountable on the supposition that this refers to the resurrection.(3) The interpretation which refers this to the resurrection of the dead, is inconsistent with numerous passages where Job expresses a contrary belief. Of this nature are the following: Job 7:9,” As the cloud is consumed, and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more;” Job 7:21, “I shall sleep in the dust thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be;” see Job 10:21-22, “I go whence I shall not return - to the land of darkness, and the shadow of death; a land of darkness as darkness itself;” Job 14:7, Job 14:9, Job 14:11-12,” For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. But man dieth, and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man lieth down and riseth not; until the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.”Job 16:22, “when a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall

not return.” These passages all imply that when he should die, he would not appear again on the earth. This is not such language as one would use who believed in the resurrection of the dead. It is true, that in the discourses of Job, various and sometimes apparently contradictory feelings are expressed. He was a severe sufferer; and under strong conflicting emotions he sometimes expressed himself in a manner which he at other times regrets, and gives vent to feelings which, on mature reflection, he confesses to have been wrong. But how is it “possible” to believe that a man, in his circumstances, would ever deny the doctrine of the resurrection if he held it? How could he forget it? How could he throw out a remark that “seemed” to imply a doubt of it? If he had known of this, it would have been a sheet-anchor to his soul in all the storms of adversity - an unanswerable argument to all that his friends advanced - atopic of consolation which he could never have lost sight of, much less denied. He would have clung to that hope as the refuge of his soul, and not for one moment would he have denied it, or expressed a doubt of its truth.(4) I may urge as a distinct argument what has before been hinted at, that this is not referred to as a topic of consolation by either of the friends of Job, by Elihu, or by God himself. Had it been a doctrine of those times, his friends would have understood it, and it would have reversed all their theology. Had it been understood by Elihu, he would have urged it as a reason for resignation in affliction. Had God designed that it should be known in that age, no more favorable opportunity could be conceived for the purpose than at the end of the arguments in this book. What a flood of light would it have thrown on the design of afflictions! How effectually would it have rebuked the arguments of the friends of Job! And how clear is it, therefore, that God did not “intend” that it should then be revealed to man, but meant that it should be reserved for a more advanced state of the world, and particularly that it should be reserved as the grand doctrine of the Christian revelation.(5) A fifth consideration is, that on the supposition that it refers to the resurrection, it would be inconsistent with the views which prevailed in the age when Job is supposed to have lived. It is wholly in advance of that age. It makes little difference in regard to this whether we suppose him to have lived in the time of Abraham, Jacob, or Moses, or even at a later period - such a supposition would be equally at variance with the revelations which had then been given. The clear doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, is one of the unique doctrines of Christianity - one of the last truths of revelation, and is one of the glorious truths

which seem to have been reserved for the Redeemer himself to make known to man. There are, indeed, obscure traces of it in the Old Testament. Occasionally we meet with a hint on the subject that was sufficient to excite the hopes of the ancient saints, and to lead them to suppose that more glorious truths were in reserve to be communicated by the Messiah. But those hints occur at distant intervals; are obscure in their character, and perhaps if all in the Old Testament were collected, they would not be sufficient to convey any very intelligible view of the resurrection of the dead.But on the supposition that the passage before us refers to that doctrine, we have here one of the most clear and full revelations on the subject, laid far back in the early ages of the world, originating in Arabia, and entirely in advance of the prevailing views of the age, and of all that had been communicated by the Spirit of inspiration to the generations then living. It is admitted, indeed, that it was “possible” for the Holy Spirit to communicate that truth in its fulness and completeness to an Arabian sage; but it is not the way in which revelation, in other respects, has been imparted. It has been done “gradually.” Obscure intimations are given at first - they are increased from time to time - the light becomes clearer, until some prophet discloses the whole truth, and the doctrine stands complete before us. Such a course we should expect to find in regard to the doctrine of the resurrection, and such is exactly the course pursued, unless “this” passage teaches what was in fact the highest revelation made by the Messiah.(6) All which the words and phrases fairly convey, and all which the argument demands, is fully met by the supposition that it refers to some such event as is recorded in the close of the book. God appeared in a manner corresponding to the meaning of the words here upon the earth. He came as the Vindicator, the Redeemer, the ,go'el of Job. He vindicated his cause, rebuked his friends גאל expressed his approbation of the sentiments of Job, and blessed him again with returning prosperity and plenty. The disease of the patriarch may have advanced, as he supposed it would. His flesh may have wasted away, but his confidence in God was not misplaced, and he came forth as his vindicator and friend. It was a noble expression of faith on the part of Job; it showed that he “had” confidence in God, and that in the midst of his trials he truly relied on him; and it was a sentiment worthy to be engraved in the eternal rock, and to be transmitted to future times.It was an invaluable lesson to sufferers, showing them that confidence could, and

should be placed in God in the severest trials. So far as I can see, all that is fairly implied in the passage, when properly interpreted, is fully met by the events recorded in the close of the book. Such an interpretation meets the exigency of the case, accords with the strain of the argument and with the result, and is the most simple and natural that has been proposed. These considerations are so weighty in my mind that they have conducted me to a conclusion, contrary I confess to what I had “hoped” to have reached, that this passage has no reference to the Messiah and the doctrine of the resurrection. We do not “need” it - for all the truths respecting the Messiah and the resurrection which we need, are fully revealed elsewhere; and though this is an exquisitely beautiful passage, and piety would love to retain the belief that it refers to the resurrection of the dead, yet “truth” is to be preferred to indulgence of the wishes and desires of the heart, however amiable or pious, and the “desire” to find certain doctrines in the Bible should yield to what we are constrained to believe the Spirit of inspiration actually taught.I confess that I have never been so pained at any conclusion to which I have come in the interpretation of the Bible, as in the case before us. I would like to have found a distinct prophecy of the Messiah in this ancient and venerable book. I would like to have found the faith of this eminent saint sustained by such a faith in his future advent and incarnation. I would like to have found evidence that this expectation had become incorporated in the piety of the early nations, and was found in Arabia. I would like to have found traces of the early belief of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead sustaining the souls of the patriarchs then, as it does ours now, in trial. But I cannot. Yet I can regard it as a most beautiful and triumphant expression of confidence in God, and as wholly worthy to be engraved, as Job desired it might be, in the solid rock forever, that the passing traveler might see and read it; or as worthy of that more permanent record which it has received by being “printed in a book” - by an art unknown then, and sent down to the end of the world to be read and admired in all generations.The opinion which has now been expressed, it is not necessary to say, has been held by a large number of the most distinguished critics. Grotius says that the Jews never applied it to the Messiah and the resurrection. The same opinion is held by Grotius himself, by Warburton, Rosenmuller, Le Clerc, Patrick, Kennicott, Dalthe, and Jahn. Calvin seems to be doubtful - sometimes giving it an interpretation similar to that suggested above, and then pursuing his remarks as

if it referred to the Messiah. Most of the fathers, and a large portion of modern critics, it is to be admitted, suppose that it refers to the Messiah, and to the future resurrection.

Verse 28But ye should say - Noyes renders this, “Since ye say, ‹How may we persecute him, and find grounds of accusation against him?‘” Dr. Good,Then shall ye say, “How did we persecute him?”When the root of the matter is disclosed in me.The Vulgate, “Why now do ye say, let us persecute him, and find ground of accusation - “radicem verbi ” against him?” The Septuagint, “If you also say, What shall we say against him? and what ground of accusation - ριζαν λογου rizan logou - shall we find in him?” Rosenmuller renders it, “When you say, let us persecute him, and see what ground of accusation we can find in him, then fear the sword.” Most critics concur in such an interpretation as implies that they had sought a ground of accusation against him, and that they would have occasion to fear the divine displeasure on account of it. It seems to me, however, that our translators have given substantially the fair sense of the Hebrew. A slight variation would, perhaps, better express the idea: “For you will yet say, Why did we persecute him? The root of the matter was found in him - and since this will be the case, fear now that justice will overtake you for it, for vengeance will not always slumber when a friend of God is wronged.”Seeing the root of the matter - Margin, “and” what “root of matter is found in me.” The word rendered “matter” (דבר dabar ), “word or thing.” means, properly, word or thing - and may refer to “any” thing. Here it is used in one of the two opposite senses, “piety” or “guilt” - as being “the thing” under consideration. The interpretation to be adopted must depend on the view taken of the other words of the sentence. To me it seems that it denotes piety, and that the idea is, that the root of true piety was in him, or that he was not a hypocrite. The word root is so common as to need no explanation. It is used sometimes to denote the “bottom,” or the lowest part of anything - as e. g., the foot (see Job 13:27, “margin”), the bottom of the mountains Job 28:9, or of the sea, Job 36:30, “margin.” Here it means the foundation, support, or source - as the root is of a tree; and the sense, I suppose, is, that he was not a dead trunk, but he was like a tree that had a root, and consequently support and life. Many critics, however, among whom is

Gesenius, suppose that it means that the root of the controversy, that is, the ground of strife, was in “him,” or that he was the cause of the whole dispute.

Verse 29Be ye afraid of the sword - Of the sword of justice, of the wrath of God. In taking such views, and using such language, you ought to dread the vengeance of God, for he will punish the guilty.For wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword - The word “bringeth” is supplied by the translators, and as it seems to me improperly. The idea is, that wrath or anger such as they had manifested, was proper for punishment; that such malice as they had shown was a crime that God would not suffer to escape unpunished. They had, therefore, everything to dread. Literally, it is, “for wrath the iniquities of the sword;” that is, wrath is a crime for the sword.That ye may know that there is a judgment - That there is justice; that God punishes injuries done to the character, and that he will come forth to vindicate his friends. Probably Job anticipated that when God should come forth to vindicate “him,” he would inflict exemplary punishment on “them;” and that this would be not only by words, but by some heavy judgment, such as he had himself experienced. The vindication of the just is commonly attended with the punishment of the unjust; the salvation of the friends of God is connected with the destruction of his foes. Job seems to have anticipated this in the case of himself and his friends; it will certainly occur in the great day when the affairs of this world shall be wound up in the decisions of the final judgment. See Matthew 25.

20 Chapter 20 Verse 2Therefore - laken “certainly, truly.” In view of what has been just said. Or לכן perhaps the word means merely certainly, truly.Do my thoughts cause me to answer - This is variously rendered. The Vulgate renders it, Idcirco cogitationes meae variae succedunt sibi, et mens in diversa rapitur - “Therefore my various thoughts follow in succession, and the mind is distracted.” The Septuagint, “I did not suppose that thou wouldst speak against these things, and you do not understand more than I.” How this was ever made from the Hebrew it is impossible to say. On the word “thoughts,” see the notes at Job 4:13. The word denotes thoughts which divide and distract the mind; not

calm and collected reflections, but those which disturb, disconcert, and trouble. He acknowledges that it was not calm reflection which induced him to reply, but the agitating emotions produced by the speech of Job. The word rendered “cause me to answer” (ישיבוני yeshıybunıy ), “cause me to return” - and Jerome understood it as meaning that his thoughts returned upon him in quick and troublesome succession, and says in his Commentary on Job, that the meaning is, “I am troubled and agitated because you say that you sustain these evils from God without cause, when nothing evil ought to be suspected of God.”And for this I make haste - Margin, “my haste is in me.” The meaning is, “the impetuosity of my feelings urges me on. I reply on account of the agitation of my soul, which will admit of no delay.” His heart was full, and he hastened to give vent to his feelings in impassioned and earnest language.

Verse 3I have heard the check of my reproach - I have heard your violent and severe language reproaching us. Probably he refers to what Job had said in the close of his speech Job 19:29, that they had occasion to dread the wrath of God, and that they might anticipate heavy judgments as the result of their opinions. Or it may be, as Schultens supposes, that he refers to what Job said in Job 19:2, and the rebuke that he had administered there. Or possibly, and still more probably, I think, he may refer to what Job had said in reply to the former speech of Zophar Job 12:2, where he tauntingly says that “they were the people, and that wisdom would die with them.” The Hebrew literally is, “the correction of my shame” (כלמה musar kelımmah ), “the correction of my shame.” that is, the castigation or מוסרrebuke which tends to cover me with ignominy. The sense is, “you have accused me of that which is ignominious and shameful, and under the impetuous feelings caused by such a charge I cannot refrain from replying.”And the spirit of my understanding - Meaning, perhaps, “the emotion of his mind.” The word “mind” or “soul” would better express the idea than the word “understanding;” and the word “spirit” here seems to be used in the sense of violent or agitating emotions - perhaps in allusion to the primary signification of the word (רוח ruach ), “mind.”

Verse 4Knowest thou not this of old - That is, dost thou not know that this has always happened from the beginning of the world, or that this is the invariable course of

events. His purpose is to show that it was the settled arrangement of Providence that the wicked would be overtaken with signal calamity. It was “so” settled that Job ought not to be surprised that it had occurred in “his” case. Zophar goes on to show that though a wicked man might rise high in honor, and obtain great wealth, yet that the fall would certainly come, and he would sink to a depth of degradation corresponding to the former prosperity.Since man was placed upon earth - Since the creation; that is, it has always been so.

Verse 5That the triumphing - The word “triumphing” here (רננה renanah ),” shouting, rejoicing” - such a shouting as people make after a victory, or such as occurred at the close of harvesting. Here it means that the occasion which the wicked had for rejoicing would be brief. It would be but for a moment, and he then would be overwhelmed with calamity or cut off by death.Short - Margin, as in Hebrew “from near.” That is, it would be soon over.And the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment? - This probably means, as used by Zophar, that the happiness of a hypocrite would be brief - referring to the happiness arising from the possession of health, life, property, friends, reputation. Soon God would take away all these, and leave him to sorrow. This, he said, was the regular course of events as they had been observed from the earliest times. But the “language” conveys most important truths in reference to the spiritual joys of the hypocrite at all times, though it is not certain that Zophar used it in this sense. The truths are these.(1) There is a kind of joy which a hypocrite may have - the counterfeit of that which a true Christian possesses. The word “hypocrite” may be used in a large sense to denote the man who is a professor of religion, but who has none, as well as him who intentionally imposes on others, and who makes pretensions to piety which he knows he has not. Such a man may have joy. He supposes that his sins are forgiven, and that he has a well-founded hope of eternal life. He may have been greatly distressed in view of his sin and danger, and when he supposes that his heart is changed, and that the danger is passed, from the nature of the case he will have a species of enjoyment. A man is confined in a dungeon under sentence of death. A forged instrument of pardon is brought to him. He does not know that it is forged, and supposes the danger is past, and his joy will be as real as though the pardon were genuine. So with the man who

“supposes” that his sins are forgiven.(2) The joy of the self-deceiver or the hypocrite will be short. There is no genuine religion to sustain it, and it soon dies away. It may be at first very elevated, just as the joy of the man who supposed that he was pardoned would fill him with exultation. But in the case of the hypocrite it soon dies away. He has no true love to God; he has never been truly reconciled to him; he has no real faith in Christ; he has no sincere love of prayer, of the Bible, or of Christians and soon the temporary excitement dies away, and he lives without comfort or peace. He may be a professor of religion, but with him it is a matter of form, and he has neither love nor zeal in the cause of his professed Master. Motives of pride, or the desire of a reputation for piety, or some other selfish aim may keep him in the church, and he lives to shed blighting on all around him. Or if, under the illusion, he should be enabled to keep up some emotions of happiness in his bosom, they must soon cease, for to the hypocrite death will soon end it all. How much does it become us, therefore, to inquire whether the peace which we seek and which we may possess in religion, is the genuine happiness which results from true reconciliation to God and a well founded hope of salvation. Sad will be the disappointment of him who has cherished a hope of heaven through life, should he at last sink down to hell! Deep the condemnation of him who has professed to be a friend of God, and who has been at heart his bitter foe; who has endeavored to keep up the forms of religion, but who has been a stranger through life to the true peace which religion produces!

Verse 6Though his excellency mount up to the heavens - Though he attain to the highest pitch of honor and prosperity. The Septuagint renders this, “Though his gifts should go up to heaven, and his sacrifice should touch the clouds;” a sentence conveying a true and a beautiful idea, but which is not a translation of the Hebrew. The phrases, to go up to heaven, and to touch the clouds, often occur to denote anything that is greatly exalted, or that is very high. Thus, in Virgil,It clamor coelo.So Horace,Sublimi feriam sidera vertice.And again,Attingit solium Joyis.

Compare Genesis 11:4, “Let us build us a tower whose top may reach unto heaven.” In Homer the expression not unfrequently occurs, του γαρ κλεος ουρανον ικει tou gar kleos ouranon hikei In Seneca (Thyest. Act. v. ver. 1,2,4,) similar expressions occur:Aequalis astris gradior, et cunctos superAltum superbo vertice attingens polum,Dimitto superos: summa votorum attigi.The “language” of Zophar would also well express the condition of many a hypocrite whose piety seems to be of the most exalted character, and who appears to have made most eminent attainments in religion. Such a man may “seem” to be a man of uncommon excellence. He may attract attention as having extraordinary sanctity. He may seem to have a remarkable spirit of prayer, and yet all may be false and hollow. Men who design to be hypocrites, aim usually to be “eminent” hypocrites; they who have true piety often, alas, aim at a much lower standard. A hypocrite cannot keep himself in countenance, or accomplish his purpose of imposing on the world, without the appearance of extraordinary devotedness to God; many a sincere believer is satisfied with much less of the appearance of religion. He is sincere and honest. He is conscious of true piety, and he attempts to impose on none. At the same time he makes no attempt scarcely “to be” what the hypocrite wishes “to appear” to be; and hence, the man that shall appear to be the most eminently devoted to God “may” be a hypocrite - yet usually not long. His zeal dies away, or he is suffered to fall into open sin, and to show that he had no true religion at heart.

Verse 8He shall fly away as a dream - As a dream wholly disappears or vanishes. This comparison of man with a dream is not uncommon, and is most impressive. See Psalm 73:20; see the notes at Isaiah 29:7-8.As a vision of the night - As when one in a dream seems to see objects which vanish when he awakes. The parallelism requires us to understand this of what appears in a dream, and not of a spectre. In our dreams we “seem” to see objects, and when we awake they vanish.

Verse 9The eye also which saw him - This is almost exactly the language which Job uses respecting himself. See Job 7:8, note; Job 7:10, note.

Verse 10His children shall seek to please the poor - Margin, or, “the poor shall oppress his children.” The idea in the Hebrew seems to be, that his sons shall be reduced to the humiliating condition of asking the aid of the most needy and abject. Instead of being in a situation to assist others, and to indulge in a liberal hospitality, they themselves shall be reduced to the necessity of applying to the poor for the means of subsistence. There is great strength in this expression. It is usually regarded as humiliating to be compelled to ask aid at all; but the idea here is, that they would be reduced to the necessity of asking it of those who themselves needed it, “or would be beggars of beggars.”And his hands shall restore their goods - Noyes renders this, “And their hands shall give back his wealth.” Rosenmuller supposes it means, “And their hands shall restore his iniquity;” that is, what their father took unjustly away. There can be but little doubt that this refers to his “sons,” and not to himself - though the singular suffix in the word (ידיו yaday ), “his hands” is used. But the singular is sometimes used instead of the plural. The word rendered “goods” ,( on' און) means “strength, power, and then wealth;” and the idea here is, that the hands of his sons would be compelled to give back the property which the father had unjustly acquired. Instead of retaining and enjoying it, they would be compelled to make restitution, and thus be reduced to penury and want.

Verse 11His bones are full of the sin of his youth - The words “of the sin” in our common translation are supplied by the translators. Gesenius and Noyes suppose that the Hebrew means, “His bones are full of youth;” that is, full of vigor and strength, and the idea according to this would be, that he would be cut off in the fulness of his strength. Dr. Good renders it forcibly,“His secret lusts shall follow his bones,Yea, they shall press upon him in the dust.”The Vulgate renders it, “His bones are full of the sins of his youth.” The Septuagint, “His bones are full of his youth.” The Chaldee Paraphrase, “His bones are full of his strength.” The Hebrew literally is, “His bones are full of his secret things” ( alumay‛ עלומו) - referring, as I suppose, to the “secret, long-cherished” faults of his life; the corrupt propensities and desires of his soul which had been seated in his very nature, and which would adhere to him, leaving a

withering influence on his whole system in advancing years. The effect is that which is so often seen, when vices corrupt the very physical frame, and where the results are seen long in future life. The effect would be seen in the diseases which they engendered in his system, and in the certainty with which they would bring him down to the grave. The Syriac renders it, “marrow,” as if the idea were that he would die full of vigor and strength. But the sense is rather that his secret lusts would work his certain ruin.Which shall lie down with him - That is, the results of his secret sins shall lie down with him in the grave. He will never get rid of them. He has so long indulged in his sins; they have so thoroughly pervaded his nature, and he so delights to cherish them, that they will attend him to the tomb. There is truth in this representation. Wicked people often indulge in secret sin so long that it seems to pervade the whole system. Nothing will remove it; and it lives and acts until the body is committed to the dust, and the soul sinks ruined into hell.

Verse 12Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth - Though he has pleasure in committing it, as he has in pleasant food. The sense of this and the following verses is, that though a man may have pleasure in indulgence in sin, and may find happiness of a certain kind in it, yet that the consequences will be bitter - as if the food which he ate should become like gall, and he should cast it up with loathing. There are many sins which, from the laws of our nature, are attended with a kind of pleasure. Such, for illustration, are the sins of gluttony and of intemperance in drinking; the sins of ambition and vanity; the sins of amusement and of fashionable life. To such we give the name of “pleasures.” We do not speak of them as “happiness.” That is a word which would not express their nature. It denotes rather substantial, solid, permanent joy - such joy as the “pleasures of sin for a season” do not furnish. It is this temporary “pleasure” which the lovers of vanity, fashion and dress, seek, and which, it cannot be denied, they often find. As long ago as the time of Zophar, it was admitted that such pleasure might be found in some forms of sinful indulgence and yet even in his time that was seen, which all subsequent observation has proved true, that such indulgence must lead to bitter results.Though he hide it under his tongue - It is from this passage, probably, that we have derived the phrase, “to roll sin as a sweet morsel under the tongue,” which is often quoted as if it were a part of Scripture. The “meaning” here is, that a man

would find pleasure in sin, and would seek to prolong it, as one does the pleasure of eating that which is grateful to the palate by holding it long in the mouth, or by placing it under the tongue.

Verse 13Though he spare it - That is, though he retains it long in his mouth, that he may enjoy it the more.And forsake it not - Retains it as long as he can.But keep it still within his mouth - Margin, as in Hebrew “in the midst of his palate.” He seeks to enjoy it as long as possible.

Verse 14Yet his meat - His food.In his bowels is turned - That is, it is as if he had taken food which was exceedingly pleasant, and had retained it in his mouth as long as possible, that he might enjoy it, but when he swallowed it, it became bitter and offensive; compare Revelation 10:9-10. Sin may be pleasant when it is committed, but its consequences will be bitter.It is the gall of asps - On the meaning of the word here rendered “asps” (פתן pethen ), see the notes at Isaiah 11:8. There can be little doubt that the “asp,” or aspic, of antiquity, which was so celebrated, is here intended. The bite was deadly, and was regarded as incurable. The sight became immediately dim after the bite - a swelling took place, and pain was felt in the stomach, followed by stupor, convulsions, and death. It is probably the same as the “boetan” of the Arabians. It is about a foot in length, and two inches in circumference - its color being black and white. “Pict. Bib.” The word “gall” ,( merorah מרורה) means “bitterness, acridness” (compare Job 13:26); and hence, bile or gall. It is not improbable that it was formerly supposed that the poison of the serpent was contained in the gall, though it is now ascertained that it is found in a small sack in the mouth. It is used here as synonymous with the “poison” of asps - supposed to be “bitter” and “deadly.” The meaning is, that sin, however pleasant and grateful it may be when committed, will be as destructive to the soul as food would be to the body, which, as soon as it was swallowed, became the most deadly poison. This is a fair account still of the effects of sin.

Verse 15

He hath swallowed down riches - He has “glutted” down riches - or gormandized them - or devoured them greedily. The Hebrew word ‛bela בלע means “to absorb, to devour with the idea of greediness.” It is descriptive of the voracity of a wild beast, and means here that he had devoured them eagerly, or voraciously.And he shall vomit - As an epicure does that which he has drunk or swallowed with delight. “Noyes.” The idea is, that he shall lose that which he has acquired, and that it will be attended with loathing. All this is to a great extent true still, and may be applied to those who aim to accumulate wealth, and to lay up ill gotten gold. It will be ruinous to their peace; and the time will come when it will be looked on with inexpressible loathing. Zophar meant, undoubtedly, to apply this to Job, and to infer, that since it was a settled maxim that such would be the result of the ill-gotten gain of a wicked man, where a result like this “had” happened, that there must have been wickedness. How cutting and severe this must have been to Job can be easily conceived. The Septuagint renders this, “Out of his house let an angel drag him.”

Verse 16He shall suck the poison of asps - That which he swallowed as pleasant nutriment, shall become the most deadly poison; or the consequence shall be as if he had sucked the poison of asps. It would seem that the ancients regarded the poison of the serpent as deadly, however, it was taken into the system. They seem not to have been aware that the poison of a wound may be sucked out without injury to him who does it; and that it is necessary that the poison should mingle with the blood to be fatal.The viper‘s tongue shall slay him - The early impression probably was, that the injury done by a serpent was by the fiery, forked, and brandished tongue, which was supposed to be sharp and penetrating. It is now known, that the injury is done by the poison ejected through a groove, or orifice in one of the teeth, which is so made as to lie flat on the roof of the mouth, except when the serpent bites, when that tooth is elevated, and penetrates the flesh. The word “viper” here ( eph‛eh ), “viper,” is probably the same species of serpent that is known' אפעהamong the Arabs by the same name still - El Effah See the notes at Isaiah 30:6. It is the most common and venomous of the serpent tribe in Northern Africa and in South-western Asia. It is remarkable for its quick and penetrating poison. It is about two feet long, as thick as a man‘s arm, beautifully spotted with yellow and

brown, and sprinkled over with blackish specks. They have a large mouth, by which they inhale a large quantity of air, and when inflated therewith, they eject it with such force as to be heard a considerable distance. “Jackson.” Capt. Riley, in his “Authentic Narrative,” (New York, 1817,) confirms this account. He describes the viper as the “most beautiful object in nature,” and says that the poison is so virulent as to cause death in fifteen minutes.

Verse 17He shall not see the rivers - That is, he shall not be permitted to enjoy plenty and prosperity. Rivers or rills of honey and butter are emblems of prosperity; compare Exodus 3:17; Job 29:6. A land flowing with milk, honey, and butter, is, in the Scripture, the highest image of prosperity and happiness. The word rendered “rivers” (פלגה pelaggah ), means rather “rivulets small streams - or brooks,” such as were made by “dividing” a large stream (from פלג palag to “cleave, divide”), and would properly be applied to canals made by separating a large stream, or dividing it into numerous watercourses for the purpose of irrigating lands. The word rendered “floods,” and in the margin, “streaming brooks” ( נהרי נחלי naharey nachaley ), means “the rivers of the valley,” or such as flow through a valley when it is swelled by the melting of snow, or by torrents of rain.A flood, a rapid, swollen, full stream, would express the idea. These were ideas of beauty and fertility among the Orientals; and where butter and honey were represented as flowing in this manner in a land, it was the highest conception of plenty. The word rendered “honey” (דבש debash ) may, and commonly does, mean “honey;” but it also means the juice of the grape, boiled down to about the consistency of molasses, and used as an article of food. The Arabs make much use of this kind of food now, and in Syria, nearly two-thirds of the grapes are employed in preparing this article of food. It is called by the Arabs “Dibs which is the same as the Hebrew word used here. May not the word mean this in some of the places where it is rendered “honey” in the Scriptures? The word rendered “butter” (חמאה chem'ah ) probably means, usually, “curdled milk.” See the notes at Isaiah 7:15. It is not certain that the word is ever used in the Old Testament to denote “butter.” The article which is used still by the Arabs is chiefly curdled milk, and probably this is referred to here. It will illustrate this passage to remark, that the inhabitants of Arabia, and of those who live in similar countries, have no idea of “butter,” as it exists among us, in a solid state. What they call “butter,” is in a fluid state, and is hence compared with flowing streams. An abundance of these

articles was regarded as a high proof of prosperity, as they constitute a considerable part of the diet of Orientals. The same image, to denote plenty, is often used by the sacred writers, and by Classical poets; see Isaiah 7:22:And it shall come to pass in that dayThat a man shall keep alive a young cow and two sheep,And it shall be that from the plenty of milk which they shall give,He shall eat butterFor butter and honey shall every one eat,Who is left alone in the midst of the land.See also in Joel 3:18:And it shall come to pass in that day,The mountains shall drop down new wine,And the hills shall flow with milk,And all the rivers of Judah shall flow with water.Thus, also Ovid, Metam. iii.Flumina jam lactis, jam flumina nectaris ibant.Compare Horace Epod. xvi. 41.Mella cava manant ex ilice; montibus altisLevis crepante lympha desilit pede.From oaks pure honey flows, from lofty hillsBound in light dance the murmuring rills.Boscawen.See also Euripides, Bacch. 142; and Theoc. Idyll. 5,124. Compare Rosenmuller‘s Alte u. neue Morgenland on Exodus 3:8, No. 194.

Verse 18That which he laboured for shall he restore - This means that he shall give back the profit of his labor. He shall not be permitted to enjoy it or to consume it.And shall not swallow it down - Shall not enjoy it; shall not eat it. He shall be obliged to give it to others.According to his substance shall the restitution be - literally, according to Gesenius, “As a possession to be restored in which one rejoices not.” The sense is, that all that he has is like property which a man has, which he feels not to be his own, but which belongs to another and which is soon to be given “up.” In such property a man does not find that pleasure which he does in that which he feels to be his own. He cannot dispose of it, and he cannot look on it and feel that it is

his. So Zophar says it is with the wicked man. He can look on his property only as that which he will soon be compelled to part with, and not having any security for retaining it, he cannot rejoice in it as if it were his own. Dr. Lee, however, renders this, “As his wealth is, so shall his restitution be; and he shall not rejoice.” But the interpretation proposed above, seems to me to accord best with the sense of the Hebrew.

Verse 19Because he hath oppressed - Margin, “crushed.” Such is the Hebrew.And forsaken the poor - He has plundered them, and then forsaken them - as robbers do. The meaning is, that he had done this by his oppressive manner of dealing, and then left them to suffer and pine in want.He hath violently taken away an house which he builded not - That is, by overreaching and harsh dealings he has come in possession of dwellings which he did not build, or purchase in any proper manner. It does not mean that he had done this by violence - for Zophar is not describing a robber, but he means that he took advantage of the needs of the poor and obtained their property. This is often done still. A rich man takes advantage of the needs of the poor, and obtains their little farm or house for much less than it is worth. He takes a mortgage, and then forecloses it, and buys the property himself for much less than its real value, and thus practices a species of the worst kind of robbery. Such a man, Zophar says, must expect punishment - and if there is any man who has occasion to dread the wrath of heaven it is he.

Verse 20Surely he shall not feel quietness - Margin, as in the Hebrew “know.” The sense is, he shall not know peace or tranquility. He shall be agitated and troubled. Wemyss, however, renders this, “Because his appetite could not be satisfied.” Noyes, “Because his avarice was insatiable.” So Rosenmuller explains it. So the Vulgate renders it, “Nec est satiatus renter ejus.” The Septuagint, “Neither is there safety to his property, nor shall he be saved by his desire.” But it seems to me that the former is the sense, and that the idea is, that he should not know peace or tranquility after he had obtained the things which he had so anxiously sought.

In his belly - Within him; in his mind or heart. The viscera in general in the Scriptures are regarded as the seat of the affections. We confine the idea now to the “heart.”He shall not save of that which he desired - literally, he shall not “escape” with that which was an object of desire. He shall not be “delivered” from the evils which threaten him by obtaining that which he desired. All this shall be taken from him.

Verse 21“There shall none of his meat be left Margin, “or, be none left for his meat.” Noyes renders it, “Because nothing escaped his greatness.” Prof. Lee, “no surviver shall remain for his provision.” But the meaning, probably, is, nothing shall remain of his food, or it shall all be wasted, or dissipated.Therefore, shall no man look for his goods - Or rather, his goods or his property shall not endure. But a great variety of interpretations has been given to the passage. The Hebrew word rendered “shall look,” yachıyl is from יחיל חול chul which means, “to turn round, to twist, to whirl;” and thence, arises the notion of being firm, stable, or strong - as a rope that is twisted is strong. That is the idea here; and the sense is, that his property should not be secure or firm; or that he should not prosper. Jerome renders it, “Nothing shall remain of his goods.” The Septuagint, “Therefore his good things - αυτου τα αγκθα autou ta agatha - shall not flourish” - ανθησει anthesei f0.

Verse 22In the fulness of his sufficiency - When he seems to have an abundance.He shall be in straits - Either by the dread of calamity, or because calamity shall come suddenly upon him, and his property shall be swept away. When everything seemed to be abundant he should be reduced to want.Every hand of the wicked shall come upon him - Margin, “or, troublesome” The meaning is, that all that the wretched or miserable endure should come suddenly upon him. Rosenmuller suggests, however, that it means that all the poor, and all who had been oppressed and robbed by him, would suddenly come upon him to recover their own property, and would scatter all that he had. The general meaning is clear, that he would be involved in misery from every quarter, or on every hand.

Verse 23When he is about to fill his belly - Or rather, “there shall be enough to fill his belly.” But what “kind” of food it should be, is indicated in the following part of the verse. “God” would fill him with the food of his displeasure. It is spoken sarcastically, as of a gormandizer, or a man who lived to enjoy eating, and the meaning is, that he should for once have enough. So Rosenmuller interprets it.God shall cast the fury - This is the kind of food that he shall have. God shall fill him with the tokens of his wrath - and he shall have enough.And shall rain it upon him while he is eating - Noyes renders this, “And rain it down upon him for his food.” The meaning is, that God would pour down his wrath like a plentiful shower while he was in the act of eating. In the very midst of his enjoyments God would fill him with the tokens of his displeasure. There can be no doubt that Zophar designed that this should be understood to be applicable to Job. Indeed no one can fail to see that his remarks are made with consummate skill, and that they are such as would be fitted “to cut deep,” as they were doubtless intended to do. The speaker does not, indeed, make a direct application of them, but he so makes his selection of proverbs that there could be no difficulty in perceiving that they were designed to apply to him, who, from such a height of prosperity, had been so suddenly plunged into so deep calamity.

Verse 24He shall flee from the iron weapon - The sword, or the spear. That is, he shall be exposed to attacks, and shall flee in cowardice and alarm. Bands of robbers shall come suddenly upon him, and he shall have no safety except in flight. Pref. Lee explains this as meaning, “While he flees from the iron weapon, the brass bow shall pierre him through.” Probably the expression is proverbial, like that in Latin, Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdin. The bow of steel shall strike him through - That is, the “arrow” from the bow of steel shall strike him down. Bows and arrows were commonly used in hunting and in war. To a considerable extent they are still employed in Persia, though the use has been somewhat superseded by the gun. “Bows” were made of various materials. The first were, undoubtedly, of wood. They were inlaid with horn, or ivory, or were made in part of metal. Sometimes, it would seem that the whole bow was made of metal, though it is supposed that the metal bow was not in general use. The “weight,” if nothing else, would be an objection to it. The word which is here rendered “steel” (נחושה nechushah ), means properly “brass or

copper” - but it is certain that brass or copper could never have been used to form the main part of the bow, as they are destitute of the elasticity which is necessary. Jerome renders it, et irruet in arcum aereum - “he rushes on the brazen bow.” So the Septuagint, τοξον χαλκειον toxon chalkeion So the Chaldee,

קשתא דכוכומא - “the bow of brass.” There is no certain proof that “steel” was then known - though “iron” is often mentioned. It is possible, however, that though the whole bow was not made of brass or copper, yet that such quantities of these metals were employed in constructing bows, that they might, without impropriety, be called bows of brass. The Oriental bow consists of three parts. The handle, or middle part - that on which the arrow rested - was straight, and might be made of wood, brass, copper, or any other strong substance. To this was affixed, at each end, pieces of horn, or of any other elastic substance, and, the string was applied to the ends of these horns. The straight piece might have been of brass, and so without impropriety it might be called a brass bow. It is not properly rendered “steel” at any rate, as the word used here is never employed to denote iron or steel.

Verse 25It is drawn - Or rather, “he draws” - that is, he draws out the arrow that has been shot at him; or it may mean, as Prof. Lee supposes, that he draws, that is, “someone” draws the arrow from its quiver, or the sword from its sheath, in order to smite him. The object is to describe his death, and to show that he should be certainly overtaken with calamity. Zophar, therefore, goes through the process by which he would be shot down, or shows that he could not escape.And cometh out of the body - That is, the arrow, or the glittering blade. It has penetrated the body, and passed through it. He shall be pierced through and through.The glittering sword - Hebrew ברק baraq - “the glittering;” scil. thing, or weapon, and is given to the sword, because it is kept bright.Cometh out of his gall - Supposed to be the seat of life. See the notes, Job 16:13.Terrors are upon him - The terrors of death.

Verse 26All darkness shall be hid in his secret places - The word “darkness” here, as is common, means evidently calamity. The phrase “is hid,” means is treasured up

for him. The phrase “in his secret places,” may mean “for his treasures,” or instead of the great treasures which he had laid up for himself. The Apostle Paul has a similar expression, in which, perhaps, he makes an allusion to this place. Romans 2:5, “but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath.” Treasures formerly were laid up in secret places, or places of darkness, that were regarded as inaccessible; see the notes at Isaiah 45:3.A fire not blown - A fire unkindled. Probably the meaning is, a fire that man has not kindled, or that is of heavenly origin. The language is such as would convey the idea of being consumed by lightning, and probably Zophar intended to refer to such calamities as had come upon the family of Job, Job 1:16. There is much “tact” in this speech of Zophar, and in the discourses of his friends on this point. They never, I believe, refer expressly to the calamities that had come upon Job and his family. They never in so many words say, that those calamities were proof of the wrath of heaven. But they go on to mention a great many similar “cases” in the abstract; to prove that the wicked would be destroyed in that manner; that when such calamities came upon people, it was proof that they were wicked, and they leave Job himself to make the application. The allusion, as in this case, was too broad to be misunderstood, and Job was not slow in regarding it as intended for himself. Prof Lee (“in loc.”) supposes that there may be an allusion here to the “fire that shall not be quenched,” or to the future punishment of the wicked. But this seems to me to be foreign to the design of the argument, and not to be suggested or demanded by the use of the word. The argument is not conducted on the supposition that people will be punished in the future world. That would at once have given a new phase to the whole controversy, and would have settled it at once. The question was about the dealings of God “in this life,” and whether men are punished according to their deeds here. Had there been a knowledge of the future world of rewards and punishments, the whole difficulty would have vanished at once, and the controversy would have been ended.It shall go ill with him in his tabernacle - Hebrew ירע שריד yara‛ sarıyd - “It shall be ill with whatever survives or remains in his tent.” That is, all that remains in his dwelling shall be destroyed. Prof Lee renders it, “In his tent shall his survivor be broken” - supposing that the word yara‛ is from ירע ra‛a‛ - “to רעע break.” But it is more probably from רוע rua‛ - “to be evil; to suffer evil; to come off

ill:” and the sense is, that evil, or calamity, would come upon all that should remain in his dwelling.

Verse 27The heaven shall reveal his iniquity - The meaning here is, that the whole creation would conspire against such a man. Heaven and earth would be arrayed against him. The course of events would be so ordered as to seem designed to bring his character out, and to show what he was. He would attempt to conceal his sin, but it would be in vain. He would hide it in his bosom, but it would be developed. He would put on the air of piety and innocence, but his secret sin would be known. This seems to be the general sense of the verse; and it is not necessary to attempt to show “how” it would be done - whether by lightning from heaven, as Noyes supposes, or whether by some direct manifestation from the skies. Probably the meaning is, that the divine dispensations toward such a man - the overwhelming calamities which he would experience, would show what he was. The word “heaven” is not unfrequently put for God himself. Daniel 4:23, “the heavens do rule.” Luke 15:21, “I have sinned against heaven.”The earth shall rise up against him - Calamities from the earth. The course of events here. Want of success - sterility of soil - blight and mildew, would rise up against such a man and show what he was. His real character would in some way be brought out, and it would be seen that he was a wicked man; compare Judges 5:20.They fought from heaven;The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

Verse 28The increase of his house shall depart - Septuagint, “Destruction shall bring his house to an end.” The word rendered “depart” (יגל yıgel from ,( galah גלה means, properly, “shall go into captivity.” The sense is, that whatever he had laid up in his house would entirely disappear.His goods shall flow away - What he had gained would seem to flow away like water.In the day of his wrath - The wrath of God - for so the connection demands.

Verse 29

This is the portion of a wicked man - This conclusion is similar to that which Bildad drew at the close of his speech, Job 18:21. Zophar intended, undoubtedly, that Job should apply it to himself, and that he should draw the inference, that one who had been treated in this manner, must be a wicked man.And the heritage appointed - Margin, “of his decree from.” The Hebrew is,” Of his word” (אמרו 'emero ) - that is, of his “purpose.” The idea is, that this is the divine rule, or arrangement. It is not a matter of chance. It is the result of appointment, and when people are afflicted in this manner, we are to conclude that “God” regards them as guilty. The whole object of the discussion was to arrive at the principles of the divine administration. Nothing is attributed to chance; and nothing is ascribed to second causes, except as indicating the will of God. It is assumed, that the course of events in the world was a sufficient exponent of the divine intention, and that when they understood how God “treated” a man, they could clearly understand how he regarded his character. The principle is a good one, when “the whole of existence” is taken into the account; the fault here was in taking in only a small part of existence - this short life - and hastening to the conclusion, that the character could be certainly determined by the manner in which God deals with people here.